Brexit

What's next?

Theresa May's Deal
8
18%
No deal
12
27%
People's vote
22
49%
Something else (pls specify)
3
7%
 
Total votes: 45
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7228
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

Alexia wrote: Sat 23 Mar, 2019 17.46
Bilky Asko wrote:
Current figure: "tens of thousands". I don't even think the organisers' spurious figures would put it at a million.
Only if you believe the BBC, who have a vested interest in keeping May happy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47678763
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Alexia
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Headline changed several times throughout the day. The quotation marks were never far away either.

Anyway....May's going to be ousted tonight so keep an eye on Twitter folks. Could make for an interesting Sunday.
all new Phil
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
Location: Next door to Hell

Lidington has been out today saying he thinks the PM is doing a great job and how he has no leadership ambitions. All part of the plan to install him as PM I reckon - paint him as somebody reluctantly taking it on, not out of hunger for power.

I think Lidington as PM, forming an alliance with Watson and the non-Corbynites, will be how this plays out and will neutralise the power held by the ERG.
Thought this was a nice forum, clearly not.
User avatar
cdd
Posts: 2547
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 14.05
Location: de Voitures
Contact:

cwathen wrote: Sat 23 Mar, 2019 09.08 Few PV'ers seem to support the idea of a straight rerun, instead they want 'remain', 'leave A', 'leave B' etc - so they can claim a victory with less than half the vote.
I would guess that most Brexit-supporting individuals were also strongly of the view that FPTP is the most appropriate electoral system. If anyone insists on a method for a People’s Vote that splits the Leave vote, it will be this group.

Also, it’s inappropriate to describe a People’s Vote as a re-run (language like “second referendum” plays into this). It is a vote on a final set of options, which were explicitly not known or set out when the initial referendum was held. Most importantly, if it is accepted that a PV is a re-run, it opens the doors for Brexit supporters to demand a third/fifth/ etc referendum.

I don’t have much time for those who oppose a PV, I’m afraid. The more interesting debate from my point of view is whether we should have a PV, or simply revoke A50 without one.

The main argument against a direct A50 revocation is that it is anti-democratic, and that it disrespects the referendum result. I have a lot of time for such an argument. On the other hand, if (like I do) you view the prospect of a No Deal as being akin to the fall of Rome, I think we are now approaching “end justifies the means” territory.

It is an appalling state of affairs that No Deal remains the default outcome, and thus a real risk. In my opinion, that default outcome should be changed, and the way to do that is via an A50 revocation along with the announcement that Brexit will be considered again if and when a credible plan is formed.

Although I would like to believe that No Deal would not win in a PV, I am of the opinion that it is not worth taking the risk for. In a representative democracy, the general public is not expected to consider complex trade issues in deciding how to vote - that is the job of MPs. The Remain argument has appalling rhetoric. Leave was, and always will be, susceptible to snappy slogans. With a PV, Leave only has to win the rhetoric argument. With revocation, they’d have to come up with a plan, not just rhetoric.

More dangerously, if No Deal won a PV, the damage would far more insidious than major economic hardship. With economic collapse will come prominent Brexiteers explaining that our struggles are the EU punishing us for leaving - this rhetoric will be very powerful, especially as it’s partly true. Historically, jingoism, nationalism and fascism rise during times of adversity.

Moreover, a PV causes plenty of additional problems. If turnout is lower, does that redefine “the will of the people”? Unless turnout is only marginally higher, a PV undermines itself. A vastly higher turnout would raise questions about validity/motivation/backing.

Needless to say, I am also a realist and recognise that a PV has a chance of happening whereas a flat revocation does not. PV is firmly Option #2 on my list of preferences for what should happen next. But I thought it was worth explaining why I consider a revocation ideologically superior to a PV, even if it undermines democracy.
cwathen
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

Also, it’s inappropriate to describe a People’s Vote as a re-run (language like “second referendum” plays into this). It is a vote on a final set of options, which were explicitly not known or set out when the initial referendum was held.
As I've said before, I think a multi-stage referendum where there was a vote on the concept followed by a further vote to confirm the decision once the reality became clear was the most sensible way to do this - so akin actually to what People's Vote notionally stands for. I also believe that it should never have come down to a simple majority required, leading to a situation where on the day the prevailing wind pushed leave over the line, whilst on another day remain may have squeaked it. For the matter to be conclusively settled (in either direction), a qualifying majority should have been required.

But that isn't what was done. It was very clear that the referendum was a straight in/out decision based on a simple majority and whilst legally it was advisory, it was also clearly stated (in what has turned out to be the mistaken belief that remain would win) that the result would be respected and implemented.

I don't think it's inappropriate to describe 'People's Vote' as a second referendum because that's exactly what it is - asking the people to review a decision they've already made. I don't believe at all that PV is born out of a genuine wish to 'put it back to the people' in the possession of facts which didn't exist before and which is entirely prepared to accept a further leave result as a result of the PV. It seems pretty clear to me that it is a movement designed to overturn the original referendum result based out of a view that the wrong decision was reached and Brexit must be stopped, with legitimacy being claimed based on a new mandate to remain. However this mandate is not being pursued in the same way as the original. Instead it is most likely to offer a single remain option but multiple leave options, which immediately lowers the bar for remain below that of the original referendum. I believe that's by design to increase the chances of a remain result being achieved.
Most importantly, if it is accepted that a PV is a re-run, it opens the doors for Brexit supporters to demand a third/fifth/ etc referendum.
Well to be honest, Brexit supporters have already won a referendum so they are ahead at the moment. If remain win this one, it's not entirely out of order for leave to proclaim "one all, best of three". Which again is another reason why there shouldn't be a second referendum.

But on the other hand, I don't think PV are in any way prepared or have given much consideration to the possibility of a further leave result after the second referendum. If there is one thing that does unite leavers and remainers that I've noticed it is the unfailing belief that they got it right the first time - I literally don't know a single person who has moved on their Brexit position since the referendum. I'm no different - even though I'm defending Brexit in this post if it really comes down to it and there is a second referendum, I'll still vote remain again.

So if PV fails to stop Brexit, are you saying that the campaign will pack up and go home and stop opposing Brexit then? Not a bit of it, a third referendum would be launched under yet another brand name which claims to be substantially different to the previous two yet still has the same over-riding goal - to stop Brexit.

Remain aren't going to stop fighting their corner any more than Leave will stop defending their result. Honestly, we just need to get on with it under whatever terms are agreed (or indeed none at all). Continually kicking Brexit down the road in the hope that it will just go away is doing more harm than no deal ever would.
It is an appalling state of affairs that No Deal remains the default outcome, and thus a real risk. In my opinion, that default outcome should be changed, and the way to do that is via an A50 revocation along with the announcement that Brexit will be considered again if and when a credible plan is formed.
Whilst I never had much, and now have no time for TM, she is right about one thing. You can't 'take no deal off the table'. No deal is a default outcome that will happen in the absence of any other outcome. We vote to leave, the government try to negotiate a deal, if they can't negotiate a deal, there is no deal, so therefore we leave without a deal. It's as simple as that (or at least it should be).

You're saying that a less appalling state of affairs would be for the government to have revocation as their action if a deal can't be agreed? Firstly, what incentive does the EU have at all to offer a deal in the knowledge that if they just decline to offer one then we won't really leave?You can't negotiate unless the other side believes that you will get up and walk away if it comes down to it. Secondly, how is that compatible with the principle that the referendum result would be respected if it amounts to not being respected if there is no deal?

And when on earth would 'Brexit be considered again if and when a credible plan is formed'? And how would we implement that Brexit? Another vote? Brexit has divided the country, taken out a prime minister who until that point was pretty secure, turned political division into chasms, and deadlocked parliament for almost 3 years. And that's just for starters. If Brexit goes away, no government in their right mind will ever bring it back again - but then I'm sure you know that.
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7228
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

"He has to be larger than bacon"
bilky asko
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

Image
all new Phil
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
Location: Next door to Hell

Particularly enjoying the replies to that. Many people questioning the *actual experts* in estimating crowd numbers and suggesting they have got it wrong - but happy to take the line from People’s Vote as gospel.
Thought this was a nice forum, clearly not.
User avatar
rob
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat 06 Sep, 2003 12.01
Location: Overton, Hampshire
Contact:

BREAKING: Theresa May says she will resign after her Brexit deal is done.
barcode
Posts: 1473
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

I don't think this is going to end well for anyone, and no one complaints will be resolved, just a shame no cares for the other.

james2001
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 23.10

Pete wrote: Wed 27 Mar, 2019 08.13
He's my MP, he's a prick, he wouldn't have got anywhere near being elected if it wasn't for brexit, he's been an embarrasment, and hopefully he'll be out on his arse come the next election.

Remember this is in addition to him saying people on benefits should be sterilised and nearly getting sued by Jeremy Corbyn.
Please Respond