Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Voll Blau]

Pip pip, what a jolly old parlour game this all is. 

[Buce]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Here's a little time-bomb potentially thrown into the Brexit mix: http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-fails-block-case-allow-uk-to-stop-brexit-50-article-2018-11

 

"Theresa May could be handed the power to unilaterally reverse Brexit after a court refused an appeal by her government to block a landmark case on the issue being referred to European courts.In September, Edinburgh's Court of Session referred the question of whether the UK can revoke its Article 50 request to leave the EU to the European Court of Justice after a case was brought by a group of Scottish politicians. They  argued that Article 50 — which triggered the UK's EU withdrawal process — can be revoked without the agreement of the other 27 European member states. However, the UK government sought permission to appeal the decision at the UK Supreme Court. Lord Carloway, Scotland's most senior judge, refused the application on Thursday, meaning the case will now proceed to the ECJ as planned, with a provisional date of November 27".

 

So, by December, there could be an ECJ ruling confirming that the UK can unilaterally reverse Article 50 and stay in the EU - potentially keeping all its current benefits, including the UK rebate.

 

Now, I'm sure neither May nor any other PM, nor even Parliament, would simply reverse the notice to leave. That would create public outrage about abuses of democracy - and rightly so, in my opinion.

 

But if such a ruling coincides with May presenting parliament with a dog's breakfast of a negotiated deal, parliament rejecting that deal and the UK heading ill-prepared for No Deal, which looks increasingly possible, then it's going to strengthen the chances of us ending up with a second referendum, I reckon. Btw, I don't assume that Remain would win a second referendum. The lack of a decent deal on the table and the looming reality of No Deal might make it more likely, but most people are still firmly sticking by their original view - and some who voted Remain might go Leave (even with No Deal) at a second referendum, on the basis of "we decided, let's just get on with it". 

3

 

I disagree.

 

It's as plain as day to everyone now what a complete disaster Brexit will be; even ardent Leavers have long-since resorted to 'It's democracy, innit' as their only argument. I think only stubborn pride and embarrassment prevents a lot of Leave voters admitting they made a mistake, but nobody will be looking over their shoulder in the Polling Station.

[Buce]

 

BoJo's brother resigns over Brexit:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46155403

[Guest MattP]

UK economy growing at fastest rate since late 2016.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46151172

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Buce said:

I disagree.

 

It's as plain as day to everyone now what a complete disaster Brexit will be; even ardent Leavers have long-since resorted to 'It's democracy, innit' as their only argument. I think only stubborn pride and embarrassment prevents a lot of Leave voters admitting they made a mistake, but nobody will be looking over their shoulder in the Polling Station.

Have you not watched the news for 12 months? We are leaving in name only.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Pip pip, what a jolly old parlour game this all is. 

Bizarre, Jo Johnson was one of the MP's who actually wrote the last Tory manifesto - let alone just stand on it.

 

They are all completely bonkers this family. 

[Alf Bentley]

24 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I disagree.

 

It's as plain as day to everyone now what a complete disaster Brexit will be; even ardent Leavers have long-since resorted to 'It's democracy, innit' as their only argument. I think only stubborn pride and embarrassment prevents a lot of Leave voters admitting they made a mistake, but nobody will be looking over their shoulder in the Polling Station.

 

I hope you're right - and you might be, though I wouldn't be as confident as you seem.

 

I honestly don't know what to expect next - or what outcome to expect if we do end up with a second referendum. A second referendum is now looking likelier than ever before, but I still wouldn't put money on it happening, never mind the result.

 

I started trying to analyse in detail what might happen, but I cannot be arsed any more. It's all simply too depressing.

 

We've always been told that "No Deal is better than a bad deal", that we'd have loads of trade deals ready to go in March etc. I'd be interested in hearing from Brexiteers as to whether they still believe that. My impression is that the line now will be "we could have had a wonderful Brexit future, but the liberal establishment betrayed us". Whatever the outcome, in coming years, the atmosphere in this country could make Trump's USA seem like a kiddies' tea party..... I so hope that I'm wrong! 

 

I see that May was involved in a real-life car crash in Belgium today (not hurt).....it's like a metaphor.

 

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

We've always been told that "No Deal is better than a bad deal", that we'd have loads of trade deals ready to go in March etc. I'd be interested in hearing from Brexiteers as to whether they still believe that.

Of course not, it doesn't appear now that we'll even be able to pursue independent trade until the end of transition and even that will still be subject to alignment. 

 

From my side we should have seen it coming, no idea why I trusted her, she backed down under pressure every time and home secretary and the EU knew that so she did here, we were never serious about no deal and we had to be to gain concessions. 

 

This isn't Brexit and the only reason I'm now prepared to still go through with it is so the anti-democrats from the peoples vote mob aren't emboldened anymore. Ironically if they weren't pushing for a second referendum I'd be up for delaying this after another general election. 

 

In hindsight we should have sat on Article 50 - just told the EU we'll invoke it when we like as it's our perogative, the might have also made them be more forthcoming with offers for a negotiation to end the uncertainty, the more I think about it that was one of our big cards.

 

I mean the only two prominant politicians in Britain who wanted it invoked immediately were Farage and Corbyn - when those two agree on something you know it's the wrong decision. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Of course not, it doesn't appear now that we'll even be able to pursue independent trade until the end of transition and even that will still be subject to alignment. 

 

From my side we should have seen it coming, no idea why I trusted her, she backed down under pressure every time and home secretary and the EU knew that so she did here, we were never serious about no deal and we had to be to gain concessions. 

 

This isn't Brexit and the only reason I'm now prepared to still go through with it is so the anti-democrats from the peoples vote mob aren't emboldened anymore. Ironically if they weren't pushing for a second referendum I'd be up for delaying this after another general election. 

 

In hindsight we should have sat on Article 50 - just told the EU we'll invoke it when we like as it's our perogative, the might have also made them be more forthcoming with offers for a negotiation to end the uncertainty, the more I think about it that was one of our big cards.

 

I mean the only two prominant politicians in Britain who wanted it invoked immediately were Farage and Corbyn - when those two agree on something you know it's the wrong decision. 

 

That assumes that there IS a transition period. That will only happen if the EU & UK agree a divorce deal and, crucially, that it gets through the UK parliament (and is approved by the EU27 & EU institutions).

 

Now, if it's true that May plans to capitulate to most EU demands (and the discontent of Tory Remainers like Jo Johnson, Tory Brexiteers and the DUP suggest this), the EU and its constituent members probably will be happy to do a deal - very much on their terms. But how is that going to pass through the UK parliament if Brexiteers, the DUP, Labour and many Tory Remainers are opposed to it? May could be the only person voting for it! 

 

If May's deal is rejected by parliament, we are heading for No Deal unless and until something prevents that, such as a renegotiation, Article 50 extension, election or referendum. For a while now, I've thought that both No Deal and a referendum were more likely than most people thought - and I still do, just DK which is more likely. I suppose there could still be a transition if May's deal is rejected & she goes and negotiates something else, but is that likely & is there time?

 

The only way there'll be another referendum is if parliament votes for it.....I struggle to see how that could be deemed anti-democratic. You might not like it, any more than I liked the result of the first referendum - but it was perfectly democratic for the Tories, having won a majority, to call a referendum - then the people decided. If there's a parliamentary majority for another referendum and the people change their mind (and I don't share Buce's optimism about this), that would be democracy in action.

 

We disagree on much other Brexit stuff (and agree on some stuff). But I'm curious at you blaming May alone for this mess. Do the Tory Brexiteer ministers not share the blame? We've had Brexiteers as Brexit Secretary throughout (Davis & Raab), Fox as Trade Secretary throughout, Boris as Foreign Secretary until a couple of months back.....not to mention the Tory Party as a whole keeping May in post without so much as even a failed leadership challenge. Were those pro-Brexit ministers so stupid they didn't realise what a mess she was making or so venal they didn't care? Actually, maybe they were....

 

You might have a point about delaying Article 50, but I doubt it would have made a massive difference. It was always an existential issue for the EU to protect the benefits of its members - all the more so because it had a lot of internal discontent already. No sane club offers non-members terms remotely comparable to those offered to paying members. Though, ironically, if all the EU27 citizens had loved the EU, they'd have been better able to make a few concessions without risking others exiting.

[Jon the Hat]

Jojo wrote exactly what everyone thinks now; we are sliding towards a terrible deal which will be rejected by parliament and probably by the people in a referendum.  If so May must resign immediately and let’s see what we can make of it from there; either a deferment or a better deal, if not revocation of article 50 at least in the short term.  What a ****ing mess.

[TheUltimateWinner]

I agree with the reasons for Jo Johnson’s resignation actually, I don’t think either side of the leave or remain argument can be happy with the current direction, it does seem like a brexit for brexits sake. 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

I'll certainly come back to that post Alf when I get time next week, too many points to address from a mobile!

[Buce]

Raab C. Brexit. 

 

 

“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and if you look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” Brexit secretary Dominic Raab, ladies and gentlemen, at some event on the tech industry this week.

“My wife would say [my Lego collection is] far too large, but I find Lego therapeutic … Everybody who does any difficult or stressful job needs a way to switch off. We all have different ways. Mine is Lego.” Culture secretary Jeremy Wright, ladies and gentlemen, on Talk Radio yesterday morning.

“I freely admit that when I started this job, I didn’t understand some of the deep-seated and deep-rooted issues that there are in Northern Ireland. I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought, for example, in Northern Ireland, people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa.” Northern Ireland secretary Karen Bradley, ladies and gentlemen, in a political magazine interview this September.

 

 ‘My wife would say [my Lego collection is] far too large, but I find Lego therapeutic … ’ The culture secretary, Jeremy Wright. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images

Behold the government of all the talentless: a place where you don’t just think it, but you make extra sure to say it out loud and in public. As the Lego song itself goes: everything is awesome, everything is cool when you’re part of a team. Or is it? Perhaps you are highly relaxed about the fact that seemingly every cabinet job these days is an outrageous fish-out-of-water comedy, or a Pygmalion-like plot in which two unseen financiers have decided, for a bet, to pass off a rejected Family Fortunes contestant as a secretary of state. Or perhaps, like me, you occasionally wake up screaming: “Wait! Morpheus, come back! I’ve changed my mind! I want the blue pill. GIVE ME BACK THE ****ING BLUE PILL.”

 

I truly don’t want to know that anyone in the animal kingdom, let alone in the Department for Exiting the European Union, is not meaningfully aware that the UK is an island. Then again, I am somehow even more horrified by the news that on Friday morning allies of Raab – whose own officials call him Raab C Brexit – were taking the time to brief that he did actually know Britain was an island/archipelago.

I mean, once you’re calling journalists, on behalf of a secretary of state, and your tongue and your teeth and your lips are working together to form the statement, “Of course Dominic knew Britain was an island”, haven’t you gone way past your personal safe word? When you look in the bathroom mirror, is the face of your eight-year-old self not looking back at you and whispering, “Get out now!”? Or is it, in fact, even worse than that? Politically speaking, do you not at that point realise you’ve been dead the entire movie?

 

 ‘I didn’t understand things like when elections are fought in Northern Ireland ... people who are nationalists don’t vote for unionist parties and vice versa.’ The Northern Ireland secretary , Karen Bradley Photograph: Mark Thomas/REX/Shutterstock

At this moment in our national journey, the government makes much more sense when you realise it can only be a massive hidden-camera simulation designed solely to amuse the occupants of a distant planet. Clustered round a visual port somewhere in Andromeda galaxy, interconnected strings of aliens cry with laughter every week at top-rating series Big Brexit, in which the hapless denizens of a Truman-like shitshow fail to realise they are being taken for a ride by their competition-winner overlords. Every UK resident stars.

Advertisement

And so to where we find ourselves, several weeks after the date we were once told was the absolute deadline for domestic agreement on a deal, and the PM can’t even get her own government or parliamentary partners to agree. As I was writing this, transport minister Jo Johnson resigned. The DUP, on whose support Theresa May relies after her Darwin award-winning 2017 election, have accused her of breaking her promises to them. No 10 appears to be the last to know what everyone else has been saying for months: that it was only a matter of time before this particular alien burst out of the government’s chest cavity. Meanwhile, the noises off are pushing no deal with increasing insistence. “We are a big country,” blustered David Davis on Thursday. “We can look after ourselves.”

And yet, are we, and can we? There was a 69-year-old Dutch chap in the news this week who is going to court to argue he should be allowed to formally self-identify as 49 because he reckons he’ll do better on Tinder. Apparently he sees himself as a “young god” whom doctors have told has the body of a 45-year-old. “When I’m 49,” he reasoned, “with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.” I couldn’t help feeling there was a little something of Brexit UK to this gentleman: that sense that you’re a total swashbuckler who’s only being held back by imagined red tape, and that you’d get laid twice as much and twice as filthily under WTO rules.

May’s government is the obnoxious hatchback driver in the Ferrari baseball cap, with negotiators such as Davis veering from ill-mannered to unrealistic. It has squandered much of the negotiating period since article 50 was triggered, acting like its bumper sports the legend “MY OTHER COUNTRY IS A SUPERPOWER”. Incidentally, from the clown car to the car being driven knowingly over a cliff, it’s striking how many of the most apposite Brexit metaphors are car-related. Or, as the more literal leading Brexiteer economist Patrick Minford put it the other week: “You’re going to have to run [the car industry] down, in the same way we ran down the coal and steel industry. These things happen.”

So there you go. Many of us who once thought the UK had been having its post-imperial hangover for a few decades now realise that, during that period, Britain was in fact still drunk. The real hangover, unfortunately, is only just about to kick in.

Edited 9 November 2018 by Buce

[Carl the Llama]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

UK economy growing at fastest rate since late 2016.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46151172

That's good but it will be a lot more inspiring when we're no longer making "best since" statements against the low bar that has been this past decade (and counting).  It's heartening that we've now not seen negative growth since 2013 but it'll be when we're comparing results to the years between '92 and '08 that things are truly looking up again.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I'll certainly come back to that post Alf when I get time next week, too many points to address from a mobile!

 

Righto. Though events might have moved on by then, I suspect.

 

C4 News quoted the People's Vote crew (a biased source, admittedly) as saying they were talking to about 40 Tory MPs, including 4 ministers, about supporting a referendum. likely to vote against May's deal, along with a fair number of Brexiteers.

With various Tory Remainers, Brexiteers, all but a few Labour/Opposition MPs, and apparently the DUP all planning to oppose May's deal, is there any point in her even presenting it? Moves things on to the next stage, whatever that is, I suppose.....

 

Dominic Grieve was also on. He advocated getting Article 50 extended (would the EU necessarily agree?). He also confirmed that Parliament couldn't legislate for a second referendum without the govt's cooperation....but implied that if May's deal is defeated and the govt resists a second referendum & proceeds towards No Deal, then it is likely that the govt will fall: i.e. Corbyn could yet get his election - though my guess is that May would sooner accept a referendum than an election. In turn, I suppose the Brexiteers might try to trigger a party leadership challenge - or even an election - some time soon as I don't imagine they'd want to run the risk of a referendum if at all avoidable.....

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

UK economy growing at fastest rate since late 2016.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46151172

 

Experts seem to reckon the boost in quarterly growth was caused by all the England fans drinking lots of beer in the hot sun as Gareth's lads got to the semis..... I know, I know! 

Seriously, though, if any part of our economy is dependent on England success, constant sunshine and national drunkenness, maybe we should worry.....well, the drunkenness is probably reliable as a consistent factor in growth...

 

Business investment was down significantly, which doesn't bode so well.....though the Brexit negotiating outcome will have a big impact on what happens next.

I do actually believe Hammond's claim that there'll be a short-term upturn in growth - a "Brexit dividend" - if a deal is done.....problem is I cannot see a deal getting approved any time soon, which'll have businesses - and people - increasingly worried...

If we head for No Deal, growth will crash, I presume....probably stagnate if uncertainty persists through a referendum or election.

[Guest MattP]

13 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

That assumes that there IS a transition period. That will only happen if the EU & UK agree a divorce deal and, crucially, that it gets through the UK parliament (and is approved by the EU27 & EU institutions).

 

Now, if it's true that May plans to capitulate to most EU demands (and the discontent of Tory Remainers like Jo Johnson, Tory Brexiteers and the DUP suggest this), the EU and its constituent members probably will be happy to do a deal - very much on their terms. But how is that going to pass through the UK parliament if Brexiteers, the DUP, Labour and many Tory Remainers are opposed to it? May could be the only person voting for it! 

 

If May's deal is rejected by parliament, we are heading for No Deal unless and until something prevents that, such as a renegotiation, Article 50 extension, election or referendum. For a while now, I've thought that both No Deal and a referendum were more likely than most people thought - and I still do, just DK which is more likely. I suppose there could still be a transition if May's deal is rejected & she goes and negotiates something else, but is that likely & is there time?

 

The only way there'll be another referendum is if parliament votes for it.....I struggle to see how that could be deemed anti-democratic. You might not like it, any more than I liked the result of the first referendum - but it was perfectly democratic for the Tories, having won a majority, to call a referendum - then the people decided. If there's a parliamentary majority for another referendum and the people change their mind (and I don't share Buce's optimism about this), that would be democracy in action.

 

We disagree on much other Brexit stuff (and agree on some stuff). But I'm curious at you blaming May alone for this mess. Do the Tory Brexiteer ministers not share the blame? We've had Brexiteers as Brexit Secretary throughout (Davis & Raab), Fox as Trade Secretary throughout, Boris as Foreign Secretary until a couple of months back.....not to mention the Tory Party as a whole keeping May in post without so much as even a failed leadership challenge. Were those pro-Brexit ministers so stupid they didn't realise what a mess she was making or so venal they didn't care? Actually, maybe they were....

 

You might have a point about delaying Article 50, but I doubt it would have made a massive difference. It was always an existential issue for the EU to protect the benefits of its members - all the more so because it had a lot of internal discontent already. No sane club offers non-members terms remotely comparable to those offered to paying members. Though, ironically, if all the EU27 citizens had loved the EU, they'd have been better able to make a few concessions without risking others exiting.

 

12 hours ago, MattP said:

I'll certainly come back to that post Alf when I get time next week, too many points to address from a mobile!

 

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Righto. Though events might have moved on by then, I suspect.

 

C4 News quoted the People's Vote crew (a biased source, admittedly) as saying they were talking to about 40 Tory MPs, including 4 ministers, about supporting a referendum. likely to vote against May's deal, along with a fair number of Brexiteers.

With various Tory Remainers, Brexiteers, all but a few Labour/Opposition MPs, and apparently the DUP all planning to oppose May's deal, is there any point in her even presenting it? Moves things on to the next stage, whatever that is, I suppose.....

 

Dominic Grieve was also on. He advocated getting Article 50 extended (would the EU necessarily agree?). He also confirmed that Parliament couldn't legislate for a second referendum without the govt's cooperation....but implied that if May's deal is defeated and the govt resists a second referendum & proceeds towards No Deal, then it is likely that the govt will fall: i.e. Corbyn could yet get his election - though my guess is that May would sooner accept a referendum than an election. In turn, I suppose the Brexiteers might try to trigger a party leadership challenge - or even an election - some time soon as I don't imagine they'd want to run the risk of a referendum if at all avoidable.....

Out of bed earlier than usual just to please you Alf!

I still think her plan all along was a far softer Brexit than she led on and she hoped to carry the deal through parliament with the support of Labour remain MP's, I know I've mentioned this before but some Eurosceptic MP's were even blocked from standing in 2017 so she was always having one eye on the rebelious side of the party back then.

If the deal fails to get through parliament I can't see an extension of Article 50 but I can now see a General Election, if she can't carry a policy through we will need a new make up of the house and after a leadership contest the Tory party can see what direction they go (membership is Eurosceptic so we know) and then the Soubry's etc can either stand on the platform properly or leave. Unfortunately I don't really see any other solution. I actually wouldn't even be opposed now to Labour doing this, let's call them out for what they are and see if they can deliver a "jobs first Brexit that pleases everyone".

I think I've already explained why I wouldn't see a second referendum as democratic - the decision of the first one wouldn't have been implemented, it's exactly why the "we have a general election every five years" argument carries no weight, the results of those are implemented - imagine Labour winning a GE and then everyone in the HoL saying we don't like this can you vote again, even if we did and a different outcome occured there would be no way that could be called democratic.

Some of the Tory Brexiteers have behaved appalling, but in the main they are actually the ones trying to hold the Prime Minister to the Conservative manifesto and the speeches she gave at Lancaster House, I need to watch that again at some point but I'm certain almost everything has been rolled back on. I reserve more of my ire (I'm sure you won't be surprised) for the Tories remain lot who were happy to keep their jobs standing on the Hard Brexit platform last year but are now doing everything possible in parliament to thwart it.

It's not fair to put them all in the same basket either, Boris Johnson is a coward, he legged it, Gove stood for PM and was defeated, so did Leadsom, Liam Fox stood and was defeated, Davis and Raab seemed to have no power whatsoever anyway over these negoatiation and looking back I think he "I don't do much" and "I don't need to be clever to do this" were his subtle ways of telling us the job had no sort of influence anyway - Rees Mogg gets a lot of abuse now because of how ubiquitous is he but those people have short memories, he wasn't even a serious player at the time of the referendum, he has came to prominance since it. I can't criticise them in hindsight as May was my choice once the final two were out even against a leaver, she seemed the most competent.

I still think she is going to try and bully her way through parliament to get the deal through, already seems to be trying that with the DUP by threatening a border on the Irish Sea in the event of a No Deal - the Tory remainers are being threatened with Boris as the next leader and the ERG are going to be threatened (I imagine with a General Election or something along the lines of an even softer Brexit after) with getting the deal through with other sides of the house - she's certainly trying to fall on her sword whiilst going.

Grieve might be right, but I suspect May would rather have a General Election than a Second Referendum - Corbyn's stock is getting lower and lower, Labour are still struggling with anti-semitism and she might even manage to win it, she surely can't run a campaign anywhere near as bad as last time and we'll be looking at a manifesto of giveaways rather than austerity as they don't go into this one with a 20% polling lead where they thought they could get away with things like the "dementia tax" and fox hunting votes.

At least it's interesting! Bit of a change from discussing whether Blair's majority will be 150 or 250 and whether William Hague can win Nuneaton.
 

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Experts seem to reckon the boost in quarterly growth was caused by all the England fans drinking lots of beer in the hot sun as Gareth's lads got to the semis..... I know, I know! 

Seriously, though, if any part of our economy is dependent on England success, constant sunshine and national drunkenness, maybe we should worry.....well, the drunkenness is probably reliable as a consistent factor in growth...

Whatever is happening, the country is still consistently outperforming the predictions of the OBR and that can only be a good thing, we are either far more resolute than they realise or the predictions are always worse than reality for another reason.

Speaking of resolute, up the City - let's have another three points for Vichai today.

[Guest MattP]

 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

Out of bed earlier than usual just to please you Alf!

[....]

Speaking of resolute, up the City - let's have another three points for Vichai today.

 

 

My turn to stall now. I'll try to respond to your full post over the next day or two, but have to get ready to head down to the ground soon.

 

I certainly second that last comment. It'll be an emotional day. Would be great if the lads pulled out a top performance and result today. Wouldn't put it past them. After a wobbly start, they played exceptionally well at Cardiff, given the trying circumstances.

[Charl91]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

I think I've already explained why I wouldn't see a second referendum as democratic - the decision of the first one wouldn't have been implemented, it's exactly why the "we have a general election every five years" argument carries no weight, the results of those are implemented - imagine Labour winning a GE and then everyone in the HoL saying we don't like this can you vote again, even if we did and a different outcome occured there would be no way that could be called democratic.
 

You know, I do have some sympathy with this "undemocratic" argument. I can sort of see it from a moral standpoint, and in an ideal world I'd agree with it. However, I think that when new facts come to light, our opinions and expectations must change with it, especially when making a decision that's very difficult to reverse.

 

Let me take the idea to its logical extremity, through use of an absurd example. Let's say the Government hold a referendum where they ask "Would you like everyone to have a free BMW - yes or no?" - everyone votes yes (because why wouldn't you). All of a sudden it comes to light that we can't really afford to do so - that Schools and Hospitals would have to be closed down across the country to pay for it, that thousands of people would lose jobs, worst case scenarios, etc. etc. People probably would've wanted to know this information in advance, as it would inform their judgement. You wouldn't say well, we need to implement the decision of the referendum first. Clearly, it's a silly, and fairly permanent decision, and it's not something you can go back very easily once it's done. Instead, you say, "Whoops, this isn't how we quite thought it would be, maybe we should double check that this is what the people really want, now that we know a bit more".

 

Obviously our current predicament is a little more grounded in reality, but the principle is the same. Maybe offering a second referendum would be quite undemocratic, had new, significant facts not come to light in the meantime. The problem isn't with the principle of democracy though; the problem was, and always has been the question, and it should never have been allowed to appear on the ballot in the form that it did. As a remainer, my biggest bug-bear has always been the ambiguity of the question that was presented; when you're pitting a known quantity against a mythical panacea, where people can imagine their own personal vision of Brexit as they envisage it, then it's certainly not a balanced question. For it to be meaningful, it should've been remain vs. a concrete option of what Brexit looked like, or they should've planned to hold a second referendum from the outset with the options (or even with the first referendum being along the lines of "are you interested in us persuing options to leave the EU" and then a second referendum to offer the options once it had been thought about). 

 

I think the crux of it is, when you decide to offer a gargantuan decision, that will significantly impact many generations to come, you need to be bloody well have thought it out a little bit first. Not asking the question, then trying to decide how it's workable afterwards. When people voted for Brexit, how many people do you think voted for this? In which case, I don't think it's "undemocratic" at all - it was just a stupid, stupid question.

 

Edited 10 November 2018 by Charl91

[Finnegan]

Not really sure how anyone can complain about "anti-democrats" with a straight face whilst suggesting we should plough on through with Brexit regardless.

 

Even if you honestly believe Brexit is what the majority of the country really want as opposed to just the biggest political **** up of our lifetimes, you'd still have to surely accept that NOT having a second referendum is a **** lot more undemocratic. 

 

Democratic would be presenting the people with their full list of options now the deal is on the table and asking "right, what do you want?" 

 

Hoodwinking the country with a bunch of false promises then going "yeah, sorry, that's not what brexit actually is going to be", then doing your own negotiations and not giving the public a chance to voice objections is infinitely more undemocratic. 

 

The only people that look like they're going to be happy with the outcome are Nationalist zealots who just want to be out of the EU in name for their own flag waving, chest thumping stupidity. 

 

Surely if you're an actual, honest to God, political brexiteer that thinks we'd be better off leaving, you'd STILL want a second referendum because you'd want a say on whether we take the deal or leave without? 

 

 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Not really sure how anyone can complain about "anti-democrats" with a straight face whilst suggesting we should plough on through with Brexit regardless.

 

Even if you honestly believe Brexit is what the majority of the country really want as opposed to just the biggest political **** up of our lifetimes, you'd still have to surely accept that NOT having a second referendum is a **** lot more undemocratic. 

 

Democratic would be presenting the people with their full list of options now the deal is on the table and asking "right, what do you want?" 

 

Hoodwinking the country with a bunch of false promises then going "yeah, sorry, that's not what brexit actually is going to be", then doing your own negotiations and not giving the public a chance to voice objections is infinitely more undemocratic. 

 

The only people that look like they're going to be happy with the outcome are Nationalist zealots who just want to be out of the EU in name for their own flag waving, chest thumping stupidity. 

 

Surely if you're an actual, honest to God, political brexiteer that thinks we'd be better off leaving, you'd STILL want a second referendum because you'd want a say on whether we take the deal or leave without? 

 

 

If they are the two options, I’d be more than happy for a second referendum.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If they are the two options, I’d be more than happy for a second referendum.

 

Would you still be happy if there was an option to remain? 

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Would you still be happy if there was an option to remain? 

It depends how it was done.

If it was a 3 way loaded referendum with remain as an option then no, as the leave vote would be split but if it had remain or the government deal in round one, then the winner vs no deal I think that would be fair.

If it ran like that, I would vote remain, then no deal.

Edited 10 November 2018 by Strokes

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It depends how it was done.

If it was a 3 way loaded referendum with remain as an option then no, as the leave vote would be split but if it had remain or the government deal in round one, then the winner vs no deal I think that would be fair.

If it ran like that, I would vote remain, then no deal.

Dion Dublin to draw the balls?