Straight Dope Message Board

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Quartz

The result of the first has yet to be implemented. Should the US have another presidential election just because Trump won (okay, poor example ) Should the UK have another general election just because?

You have a system in which the Government has broad discretion to call for an election when they please, but for some reason calling for a vote when a major policy initiative is at an impasse is foul play? Explain that one to me.

I recognize that there's quite a few people in Britain who think that a second referendum is unseemly. I quite simply do not understand this point of view. To my ears, it strikes me similarly to someone arguing, "The country already voted for Trump in 2016... and now you want to vote again in 2020? The people have spoken!!!" 51

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Quartz

And if the second results in another vote for leave, should we have a third? A fourth? Dammit, we'll keep them voting until they give the answer we want!

You keep rehashing these same nonsensical talking points thread after thread, and we keep on explaining how you're wrong, but somehow it never sticks.

I recommend anyone curious about the talking points brought up here to read this thread. Or at least a few posts from pages 6 and 7. There's really no point in going over them again; suffice it to say that anyone who thinks we should be unwilling to readjucate political decisions two years later before they were actually implemented must have a very dim view of the house of representatives, where the 2016 mandate to repeal and replace Obamacare was never achieved, but nontheless in 2018 the party who promised it was swept out of office. 52

[Nava]

Originally Posted by filmstar-en

Half the country will be saying they did not vote for it and those that did will say they they did not vote for the economy to be driven off a cliff, they were told everything would be fine.

Ah, but it's not their fault. It's the fault of Brussels, same as Catexiters claim that it's the fault of Madrid that Barcelona-defined income tax is the highest in Spain (each region defines its own tax brackets). So long as you have someone to blame, you don't have to admit fault. 53

[Ramira]

Originally Posted by Quartz

The UK voted to leave the EU. It's as simple as that. What treaties an independent UK chooses to negotiate are up to the UK and its treaty partners; I hope the UK negotiates a good deal with the EU.

Oh yes

It is eaxtly you were promised a Simple Magical Suspension Bridge that would only cost you very little money to cross the ocean.

Very simple, you just have to declare it... 54

[Ramira]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

If the mechanism exists for holding an election or referendum ad hoc at will and the requirements for it are met, why not? If politicians start calling for too many expensive public referendums, the voters can elect new politicians who promise not to do that or pass legislation to change the rules.

One True Vote One Time.

It is very People's Republic totally non dicatatorial very super simple democratic. 55

[RTFirefly]

Also, IIRC, there was nothing binding about the original referendum. If so, how can it be an abridgment of democracy to hold another referendum? 56

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

How is holding a second referendum dictatorial? It strikes me as the very opposite of that. It sounds to me like the leavers are worried they wouldn't win a second vote.

Two plus years ago, a second referendum would have been dictatorial because the UK had just had a vote. “You voted wrong! Do it again!” Now it’s a legitimate option for the government, but it’s not a very popular one. There’s been some fairly large protests demanding a second referendum, but the protestors are seemingly all people that voted Remain in the first place. There’s been no significant outcry from voters who’ve changed their minds. And the general public sentiment, rather than desiring a revote, is for the government to just get on with it.
Also, a second referendum is impossible for May politically, and overall quite unlikely. May’s spent the past two and a half years promising Brexit. I’m sure she actually wants to deliver her form of Brexit. But at this point for her, it’s either succeed or resign. A staunch Remainer could then try to win the leadership of the Conservative Party, but that would be a longshot. And then that new leader would still face all the same issues of party infighting going on now. That new prime minister could conceivably then try to secure a mandate through a general election. But trying to predict anything at that point, my crystal ball is vibrating violently and shooting out sparks. 57

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Ramira

Oh yes

It is eaxtly you were promised a Simple Magical Suspension Bridge that would only cost you very little money to cross the ocean.

Very simple, you just have to declare it...

In fairness to people who voted to exit 2 1/2 years ago, I don't think anyone was predicting that Conservative Party infighting would be this bad.

I remember a discussion before the vote where I conceded that a well executed Brexit would be worthwhile.* However I wasn't conceding that the government would actually be able to carry out a good Brexit against the opposition of the EU Commission. But I had no concept that the government would be as calamitous as it's been.

*I still thought the cost of Brexit wouldn't be worth the benefits because of the loss mutual regulation recognition, the loss of win-win collaborations such as the European Medical Agency, and the EU creating regulations to poach business sectors such as euro clearing. 58

[Bryan Ekers]

Look, chaps, you've had your winter of discontent. It was truly the pshaw-ed heard 'round the world. Now settle down with a nice cuppa and let this one go, wot? 59

[ElvisL1ves]

I still can't believe May would let it go all the way to the clear ruin of hard Brexit. Surely she has enough sense to withdraw A50 the minute before she resigns, hasn't she? 60

[Malden Capell]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

I still can't believe May would let it go all the way to the clear ruin of hard Brexit. Surely she has enough sense to withdraw A50 the minute before she resigns, hasn't she?

Honestly? I think she sees the unity of the Conservative Party to be a higher call than the unity and prosperity of her country.

It's utterly alien to you and I.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 61

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Stanislaus

. . .

So right now, there are lots of MPs saying to themselves, "We're heading for disaster and somebody is going to have to step up and do what it takes to stop it, even if that costs them personally." But what's needed is for them to go on to say, "And by golly, that someone is me." (To paraphrase political commentator Stephen Bush) . . .

Sounds like a dollar auction. 62

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

Two plus years ago, a second referendum would have been dictatorial because the UK had just had a vote. “You voted wrong! Do it again!” Now it’s a legitimate option for the government, but it’s not a very popular one.

I agree for an unconventional reason: in the span of three years, a not-insubstantial percentage of the population will be new voters, or no longer voters. The vote was close enough that if a lopsided percentage of the new voters want to remain, the current mood of the public might have legitimately changed even if no one individual changes sides on this issue. (Thus, my original feeling that this decision was so substantial that a supermajority for "yes" should have been required to prevent possible absurdities like this, but I'm not going to tell the Brits how to run their affairs.) 63

[NineLineMan]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

this decision was so substantial that a supermajority for "yes" should have been required to prevent possible absurdities like this, but I'm not going to tell the Brits how to run their affairs.)

Do you feel a referendum to cancel brexit should require a supermajority? 64

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I agree for an unconventional reason: in the span of three years, a not-insubstantial percentage of the population will be new voters, or no longer voters. The vote was close enough that if a lopsided percentage of the new voters want to remain, the current mood of the public might have legitimately changed even if no one individual changes sides on this issue. (Thus, my original feeling that this decision was so substantial that a supermajority for "yes" should have been required to prevent possible absurdities like this, but I'm not going to tell the Brits how to run their affairs.)

In three years (or sooner) the magnitude of the disaster should be evident, and with any luck when Boris and the other lackwits come out to say how great things are they can get met with rotten eggs and tomatoes.

Just do it long enough after the Hard Brexit for me to visit London on the cheap after the pound plummets. Silver linings, etc. 65

[str8cashhomie]

The bottom line reason for why it's politically impossible to ignore the referendum result or have a second referendum is that there is an immovable anti-EU base in the UK, but there is no equivalent pro-EU base that is quite as stubborn. It's a bit more complicated than that but that's the gist.

Brexit happens to be an issue that divides both the Tory and Labour parties, which essentially means voters can either demand an acceptable outcome as a prerequisite for party loyalty, or can choose to vote for their preferred party regardless of the issue. If you had a pro-leave Conservative party and a pro-remain Labor party, there would be a significant chunk of supporters of both parties whose Brexit stance was not represented by their party, and the same would be true in the reverse. The reason this isn't happening is that since the referendum, leave supporters feel emboldened to apply a brexit purity test to politicians, whereas remain supporters mostly say "well I don't want to leave, but if I don't vote Labour we're going to end up with cuts to social services/if I don't vote Tory we're going to get our taxes raised".

This really is a great example why holding a referendum to try to appease a hardline base is a terrible idea, because the hardliners are the ones that are going to hold your feet to the fire if they get their desired result. It also shows that there are cases where it actually does make sense to be a single-issue voter or be willing to vote for a spoiler candidate over a divisive issue. Of course in the case of Brexit, there is another layer to this, which is that 1 month is not nearly enough time for a spoiler faction to compel either of the major parties to go back to taking a remain position hold a second referendum. 66

[kevlaw]

Possibilities in order of likelihood:

1. May negotiates a cosmetic change to the backstop (like, the backstop will be yellow instead of purple) that gives more moderate ERGers cover to vote for it. May's Deal passes. BREXIT.
2. No change to deal. Vote goes down to the wire and May wins the game of chicken. Moderate remainers bottle out and vote for the deal. BREXIT.
3. Tory moderates grab the steering wheel and negotiate May's Deal plus a Customs Union (AKA, Corbyn's Deal). BREXIT.
4. Article 50 suspended. Government falls. National Coalition negotiates Norway+. BREXIT in name only.
5. Article 50 suspended repeatedly and indefinitely. We always intend to Brexit but never actually get around to it. Schrodinger's BREXIT.
6. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise to hold a second referendum to be decided by single transferable vote May's Deal vs Corbyn's Deal vs No Deal Brexit vs No Brexit.
7. Crash out with no deal. BREXIT
8. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise that we never need mention Brexit ever again. NO BREXIT

67

[kevlaw]

A big part of the problem is that none of the major players can possibly tell the truth because it would end their political career. If a politician does accidentally tell the truth, they get crucified in the media.

Another part of the problem is that there is no majority in parliament for any of the options currently on the table. The most popular (and sensible) options are opposed by the two main party leaders because, to support them would end their careers and probably destroy their parties.

Possibilities in order of my preference:

1. Government falls. New election entirely wipes out all of the current political parties because they are no longer fit for purpose. New leader emerges who can persuade the country that Brexit is a very bad idea. NO BREXIT
2. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise that we never need mention Brexit ever again. NO BREXIT
3. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise to hold a second referendum to be decided by single transferable vote May's Deal vs Corbyn's Deal vs No Deal Brexit vs No Brexit. I think Corbyn's Deal would win.
4. Tory moderates grab the steering wheel and negotiate May's Deal plus a Customs Union (AKA, Corbyn's Deal). BREXIT.
5. Article 50 suspended repeatedly and indefinitely. We always intend to Brexit but never actually get around to it. Schrodinger's BREXIT.

The BBC, in their sham Vox Pop interviews always manages to round up a bunch of idiots to say "I'm fed up with talking about Brexit. Why don't they just get on with it?" At my most cynical, I think there is but a tiny distance from that view to "I'm fed up with talking about Brexit. Why don't we just forget the whole thing?" I think a gifted but cynical politician like Boris Johnson could pull that one off.

This house believes that Brexit was just a big waste of time. We are fed up with talking about it and should just forget it ever happened.

There would be cheers throughout the land! 68

[filmstar-en]

Looks like 8 Labour and 3 Conservative MPs have split with their parties and joined an Independent group of MPs.

This is going to put huge pressure on the leadership of each party to accommodate the profound concern felt about their position on Brexit. At the moment both parties are dominated by their Brexit factions.

If the Conservatives lose more members, could they lose a vote of confidence? May won the last no confidence vote 319/306.

General election imminent? 69

[yendis]

Originally Posted by kevlaw

Possibilities in order of my preference:

1. Government falls. New election entirely wipes out all of the current political parties because they are no longer fit for purpose. New leader emerges who can persuade the country that Brexit is a very bad idea. NO BREXIT
2. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise that we never need mention Brexit ever again. NO BREXIT
3. Article 50 withdrawn unilaterally with a promise to hold a second referendum to be decided by single transferable vote May's Deal vs Corbyn's Deal vs No Deal Brexit vs No Brexit. I think Corbyn's Deal would win.
4. Tory moderates grab the steering wheel and negotiate May's Deal plus a Customs Union (AKA, Corbyn's Deal). BREXIT.
5. Article 50 suspended repeatedly and indefinitely. We always intend to Brexit but never actually get around to it. Schrodinger's BREXIT.

But only the first 2 options in your list can be achieved unilaterally. The rest require the EU to play along which I highly doubt they will at this stage of the game. 70

[kevlaw]

Originally Posted by filmstar-en

Looks like 8 Labour and 3 Conservative MPs have split with their parties and joined an Independent group of MPs.

This makes a soft brexit about 50% more likely, IMO. 71

[kevlaw]

Originally Posted by yendis

But only the first 2 options in your list can be achieved unilaterally. The rest require the EU to play along which I highly doubt they will at this stage of the game.

I didn't rate this as likely but I do think it is possible. And I don't think the EU would block it.

Barnier's line has been that the current deal is the only one possible given May's red lines. He has hinted that a different deal would be possible with different red lines.

Several EU honchos have hinted that they would be open to delaying Brexit if there were a chance of making useful progress. 72

[Northern Piper]

How big is May's margin in the House of Commons? Labour defections to an independent group don't change the balance of power, but Tories leaving the fold are significant. 73

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

How big is May's margin in the House of Commons? Labour defections to an independent group don't change the balance of power, but Tories leaving the fold are significant.

314 Conservative + 10 DUP

May's government was already a minority government, but had a majority with the supply and confidence agreement with the DUP. That's now technically a minority, but one seat is vacant and one belongs to the Speaker of the House who doesn't vote. Also, there are seven Sinn Fein seats, and those MP's don't sit in Parliament.

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-...f-the-parties/ 74

[XT]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Also, IIRC, there was nothing binding about the original referendum. If so, how can it be an abridgment of democracy to hold another referendum?

I guess I don't understand why they didn't do a second referendum that laid out the more nuanced options for Brexit to the public, if they were having issues actually figuring out what they would do. Couldn't they have had a second, follow up referendum detailing the various options, and, perhaps, another option which was something along the lines of remain in the EU for now while we work out an actual plan to get out down the road? That way all the options were part of the original, very vague referendum (hard to believe that they really had one that was essentially leave or stay ) but to refine what, exactly, people were voting for. Because it seems to me that the leave folks were very divided in what that means. I suspect that if they had crafted the original referendum into a more nuanced list there wouldn't have been sufficient votes to do anything but stay.

I'm assuming that it's too late to do something like this now, and it seems the punt option is off the table, though honestly, as someone not from the UK but who has quite a few friends who are, it seems to me the best of bad options would be to punt...to basically go back to the EU, say the UK will simply remain in while it tries to come up with a comprehensive plan to leave at some future date, then go back to the UK and basically say there will be no Brexit without an actual plan to leave. If said plan never happens, well, them's the breaks kiddies...learn to play nice and know what you are asking for. 75

[Northern Piper]

From what I can tell (and certainly open to correction), Cameron decided to hold the referendum to squash the Euro-sceptics in his own party and didn't think it would pass. In other words, no thought put into what happens if the dog catches the car.

A better option would have been to say from the start that there would be a second referendum, once a deal had been reached, to see if the people approved that deal.

That's the approach taken in many countries and US states for constitutional amendments: that you have two votes, separated by time, because it can be such a momentous decision.

That's not undemocratic, but simply acknowledging that major decisions should be made only after all possible information is available to the voters. 76

[kevlaw]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

A better option would have been to say from the start that there would be a second referendum, once a deal had been reached, to see if the people approved that deal.

That was Rees-Mogg's opinion once.

Originally Posted by Jacob Rees-Mogg

We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rexit-promises

I don't think it is too late and it's pretty much the position of the People's Vote campaign. I think the EU would grant an extension to Article 50 for a referendum on the final deal. 77

[Northern Piper]

Yes, when he was campaigning for " Leave."

Now that " Leave" has won, his line is: "No backsies! That would be undemocratic!"

We saw the same sort of intellectual dishonesty from Premier Parizeau in the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty. The PQ made suggestions during the campaign that there would be a second referendum to ratify any deal, but then a news article came out where a reporter caught him admitting to his supporters that it was a one-time deal. If the "yes" side won, he planned on a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, saying that it was lobsters going into a lobster pot: once in, that was it. 78

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Yes, when he was campaigning for " Leave."

It should be noted that this campaigning was being done during a 2011 parliamentary debate. I'm not familiar with the motion that was being discussed, but the prospect of a multiple-choice referendum was raised by David Cameron at the start of the debate.

Thirdly, and crucially, there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum, including an in/out option, we will miss the real opportunity to further our national interest. Fundamental questions are being asked about the future of the eurozone and, therefore, the shape of the EU itself. Opportunities to advance our national interest are clearly becoming apparent. We should focus on how to make the most of this, rather than pursuing a parliamentary process for a multiple-choice referendum.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...11024-0001.htm

Jacob Rees-Mogg was arguing for a clear referendum or pair of referendums.

The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable. <snip> That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...11024-0003.htm

As an aside, I chuckled at this bit of English humour, but then realised I didn't get the basis of the joke. Is this a cricket joke?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an extra minute—it is kind of Gloucestershire to give something to Somerset for once.

79

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners

As an aside, I chuckled at this bit of English humour, but then realised I didn't get the basis of the joke. Is this a cricket joke?

In Moggworld, possibly. 80

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Pithily Effusive

They will struggle along with an economy that's suddenly reduced by almost 10%. This will last until they can negotiate trade agreements sufficient to make up the shortfall. During this time there will be seething recrimination and finger-pointing. Two major political parties will fall into disrepute, leaving but one to rake in the chips. It's sort of like asking, "After the man shoots off his own foot, what will happen?"

John Oliver agrees that Brexit is a very bad idea, but I don't know about the sudden 10% plunge in the economy. Will the loss be that large even if compounded for a decade?

Originally Posted by PastTense

The UK government sent an A50 notice to the European Union to withdraw from that organization--which the UK Parliament approved. This notice can be unilaterally withdrawn according to the European Court of Justice. And the UK Parliament can do this up until the date of withdrawal. So technically it is still possible. The problem is the majority of Parliament favor leaving.

In 2016 large or very large majorities in all parties except DUP favored Remain. MP's favored Remain by 479 to 158 according to the numbers on that graphic. Although they may feel committed to the voters' decision, it's hard to believe a majority of MP's now really think Brexit is a good idea.

The U.S.A. was legally required to hold an election in November 2016 and then required to give the White House keys to Donald Trump, with no recourse for four years. Britain, OTOH, scored an "own-goal" and continues to score "own-goals" every day that it delays on rescinding the A50 notice. Even if they rescinded today, economic damage has already been suffered.

The Brexit referendum should have required a super-majority. Or, at a minimum, a majority in a majority of the U.K. countries — 62% of Scotland voted to Remain.

If I were a Scottish politician I think Brexit would have me joining the Separatists now and calling for a rebuild of Hadrian's Wall! ("England will pay for it!") 81

[PatrickLondon]

Hadrian's Wall is entirely in England. If you want one on the border, you're on your own. But we might consider not taking back Berwick if Scotland takes Northern Ireland off our hands (that was all James VI's fault anyway).

Comment for the purposes of comic hyperbole only. No warranty as to historical completeness is implied. Other fantastical ideas are available. If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this post, find your own helpline. 82

[PastTense]

Originally Posted by filmstar-en

Looks like 8 Labour and 3 Conservative MPs have split with their parties and joined an Independent group of MPs...

General election imminent?

So what happens with a new election? You have a Remain group offering lots of candidates. Since a higher proportion of Labour than Tory is Remain the Labour Party is hurt more resulting in the Tories winning with a clear majority--and doing their hard Brexit. 83

[Ludovic]

I think the defection hurts Labour more than the Tories but it hurts them both because it makes it harder to form a government. And if there is a true Remain shift then a new election could only help Labour if they run pro-Remain candidates.

What I am not sure of is the effect on the leadership of both parties of the defection. My guess is that it helps Tory leadership by casting off dead weight and hurts Labour leadership because there might be a temptation to enforce Remain discipline in return for an alliance with the IG and that might not go well, but really I don't have a clue. 84

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by septimus

John Oliver agrees that Brexit is a very bad idea

His exact words were, "Britain seems determined to step firmly down upon the rake of history and suffer the consequences." 85

[MarvinKitFox]

I do not understand either the intricacies or ramifications of Brexit.

All that is really understandable to the common man is that the UK political system has become a laughingstock of the world, trumping even their neighbors across the pond.

Regardless of the outcome, the UK has lost a lot of respect from the world. 86

[filmstar-en]

Best to reserve judgement until Brexit is finally over.

Who can predict what the mercurial Mr Trump will do next?

The race to the bottom is still quite open in these troubled times.

I look forward to getting back to normal politics some day and we can forget this embarrassing episode. 87

[MarvinKitFox]

Oh, I'm quite sure Mr Trump will soon enough Trump the stakes for silliness. He is quite good at that, you know.
But with the UK and Brexit, it seems as if they had done a careful study of the matter beforehand:
"Directive:How can we BEST bungle the Brexit issue and make fools of ourselves? With careful optimisation of humiliation and maximum foot-in-mouth factor? Please focus on best methods to undermine public confidence in the UK political process." 88

[nightshadea]

I think they should have another vote simply because it seems a lot of people didn't quite understand what they were voting on ……. 89

[Wrenching Spanners]

Originally Posted by nightshadea

I think they should have another vote simply because it seems a lot of people didn't quite understand what they were voting on …….

How does that make any sense? The Conservative manifesto declaring that a referendum would be pursued was published on 14 April 2015. It contained this language:

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto2015 p.75

The referendum bill was then introduced on 28 May 2015 and passed in the House of Commons on 07 September 2015. The referendum itself was called on 20 February 2016 and the vote took place on 23 June 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...endum_Act_2015

So whichever way you look at it, there was over a year’s discussion on the referendum. I can ensure you that lots of discussion was going on throughout that year, not just in the campaign period. Someone would have had to have their head stuck in the sand to be unaware of the debate. Why would someone who was wilfully ignorant three years ago suddenly become enlightened now?

But hey, whether you’re within or without the UK, feel free to join the grassroots campaign for a second referendum. Get a clear majority of the UK demanding a vote and I for one will concede to the demand. You better work hard though – that campaign’s been going absolutely nowhere. Or maybe you can contact whichever members of Parliament you have access to and enlighten them? Good luck with that lot. 90

[filmstar-en]

That discussion about holding the Referendum was within the Conservative Party and its significance was understated. It was, after all, legally only advice to the government. That was then transformed after the vote into a powerful political imperative.

I am sure if it was anticipated that that it would be proclaimed with gusto as 'unarguable democratic will of the people' and effectively hand the driving wheel over the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. Cameron should have taken care to ensure that the vote required at least a supermajority or for it to require a confirmation vote on the deal negotiated.

The Europsceptics have undermined every Conservative leader since Thatcher and Cameron was vulnerable with a small majority and UKIP trying to lure Conservative MPs to their cause. The internal politics of the Conservative party drove the Referendum. Was the EU high on the voters wish list of issues? The public cared little for questions about Europe. It was way down the list of concerns. Voters were more interested in the Education, NHS, the economy, environment.....The usual things that have been eclipsed by the never ending Brexit debate.

Most voters don't even now realise the Mays Deal or no Deal is not the end of Brexit, it is only the terms under which the UK will leave. They are unprepared for what follows, which will be many years of bargaining with the EU over the terms of trade. To say nothing of desperately trying to negotiate with forty or so countries around the world trade deals to replace those handled by the EU.

There is a good deal of exhaustion about the endless coverage about Brexit in the news in the UK. The political journalists love it and I am sure the politicians enjoy the drama. Well, at least the will until they actually have to pick up the monumental workload that will be required to keep the economy stable once this dam breaks.

I can see this Referendum device being used to great effect by Corbyn, if he ever gets elected. Posing a series of questions that invite voters to endorse a radical programme of socialist reforms in the UK would enable that mantra 'the democratic will of the people' to be used to justify anything. A Labour Corbyn government could easily be as damaging to the economy as Brexit. He and is faction are very far to the Left of British politics, it will be back to the radicalism of the 1970s. The political choices in the UK seem to be between two parties that are both dangerously misguided and can do great damage to the countries prospects. They are now so divided internally they are both beginning to fall apart.

Referendums in the UK have been used as a political device in a wholly irresponsible manner. The only one where there was actually a constructive national debate was the Scottish referendum. Other countries do them properly.

Such a mess. 91

[filmstar-en]

The next date when there will be some development is 26 February when May is due to report back with the result of any talks with the EU regarding the Backstop issue. So high noon will be 27th February and a 'meaningful vote' on the Withdrawal Agreement plus any changes she has been able to agree. The EU haven't budged from their position that the deal is set in stone.

Not much hope of her winning that vote unless she pulls something dramatic out of the bag and she does not really have any more cards to play.

The BBC has drawn a little flow chart of the options that might follow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

I think she will lose the vote and then it is a case of how to avoid a No Deal and that will inevitably require a delay to the 29 March deadline. Her party may split further. So might Labour.

I suspect the delay will be about a year, a lot of elections are due in the EU in the coming months. 92

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by filmstar-en

The only one where there was actually a constructive national debate was the Scottish referendum. (

At least with the indyref those who advocated for a change to the status quo produced a huge White Paper detailing the size of the task ahead. It's a flawed document in many ways, but at least it was a very good and comprehensive attempt at a scoping exercise, and a lot of thought - years worth, in fact - went into it. The Brexiteers on the other hand - despite decades to have a think about it - produced fucking hee-haw.

And now we see the consequences of that. 93

[filmstar-en]

Now it looks May has decided Parliament will get a meaningful vote on 12th March. Taking it to the wire: Mays deal or No Deal. 94

[Malden Capell]

It's going to be a long two weeks. 95

[Ramira]

So your Labour Party is announcing it is backing 2nd Referendum. And Donald Tusk, the Polish president of the EU Council has called a delay rational but your Mrs May has rejected... (because she believes some magical consensus will now be achieved? Is she actually this incompetent???)

“The less time there is until 29 March, the greater likelihood of an extension,” Mr Tusk said. “This is an objective fact — not our intention, not our plan — but an objective fact. I believe in the situation we are in, an extension would be a rational solution.”

Mr Tusk’s suggestion makes him the most senior European official to publicly broach a delay, but it was immediately rejected by Mrs May, who insisted it was still “within our grasp” to leave the EU with a deal on the scheduled Brexit day, March 29.

96

[Riemann]

Better late than never. This is what I had long been hoping for. I think Labor pushing for a second referendum is the only path to it happening.

Things are looking up. An extension seems like a formality.

To my mind, the most appropriate way forward is relatively long extension to allow a general election, with Labor laying out a clear manifesto for a second referendum, and specifying exactly what the referendum would look like; and the Conservative party laying out [something else]. This way, any change to the result of the first election has to pass two hurdles of democracy - a general election in which the question of a new referendum is a primary factor, and then (if Labor win) the referendum itself. 97

[Mr Shine]

Originally Posted by Riemann

Better late than never. This is what I had long been hoping for. I think Labor pushing for a second referendum is the only path to it happening.

Things are looking up. An extension seems like a formality.

To my mind, the most appropriate way forward is relatively long extension to allow a general election, with Labor laying out a clear manifesto for a second referendum, and specifying exactly what the referendum would look like; and the Conservative party laying out [something else]. This way, any change to the result of the first election has to pass two hurdles of democracy - a general election in which the question of a new referendum is a primary factor, and then (if Labor win) the referendum itself.

Just a note, as a proper noun, the Labour party should be spelled correctly, even if you would use "labor" as a lowercase word. 98

[Riemann]

Originally Posted by Mr Shine

Just a note, as a proper noun, the Labour party should be spelled correctly, even if you would use "labor" as a lowercase word.

Oops, thanks - and I'm British. That's a hypercorrection error on my part from having to consciously correct what I write to U.S. spelling so often (I live in the U.S.). 99

[glee]

It's very sad to see the Leave fanatics (like Quartz) try to 'analyse' the situation.

Their only point is "We had a referendum and the result to Leave must apply for all eternity."

Of course the Referendum was badly flawed. It should have said:

Which of these options do you prefer?:

- Hard Brexit (no agreement on anything)
- Norwegian relationship with the EU
- Canadian relationship with the EU
- negotiated relationship with the EU
- Remain

The Leave camp focused on three things:

- there would be a massive invasion of Turks unless we leave (Lie; Turkey is not even a member of the EU)
- the NHS would get $350 million extra per week (Lie; we would lose a massive amount of money by leaving)
- "Take back control" (a meaningless slogan based on prejudice.)

Leaving will cause very difficult trade problems on the Irish border (where one country is in the EU and the other isn't. We could even see the resumption of terrorism...)

Sadly we have no political leaders of any quality. 100