Because the EU will be significantly worse off with a no-deal Brexit: The EU does a massive amount of trade with the UK; it wants the 40 billion Brexit fee; negative consequences for EU citizens living in the UK…
This is probably a stupid question from an American who hasn’t been following the disaster’s unfolding all that closely: Given the collapse of this plan, is it at all possible for another referendum to be held on Brexit and for the folks stunned into reality to say “Oh, never mind, we’ll just stay put after all”? Or are the horses already over the horizon and the doors already slumped into the smoking ruins of the barn?
That trope has run its course over two years; it’s a bust, a delusion. The EU will do its level best to look out for its own interests but will (rightly) NOT be held hostage to piracy like Brexiters have been proposing.
They’d much rather take the hit that compromise on the success the EU is. Why should they?
They’ve only got a couple of months until the deadline. I don’t know if they have enough time to put together another referendum. For example, last time the European Union Referendum Act passed in December 2015 and the actual referendum didn’t take place until June 2016.
It’s possible, but there doesn’t seem to be an easy parliamentary path to another referendum just right now.
A second referendum is one of the two circumstances where an extension to the deadline would almost certainly be granted*. The other is a general election.
- a request to extend the A50 deadline date requires agreement by all of the other EU countries
I do not think the 2nd referendum can be said to be certain to convince all the members to agree to extension.
An effective collapse of the UK government and a general election, yes, though, if only for the factor of pity…
Looking at this vote checker
it seems like only one MP abstained - Paul Flynn (Lab)
I think if the political will for a second referendum becomes clear within the U.K., then it’s not plausible that the EU would to attempt to prevent that by insisting on strict adherence to the existing timetable. If the U.K. regains the common sense that crashing out with a no-deal Brexit is the worst possible outcome, the E.U. is not going to seek to impose no-deal Brexit forcibly on a technicality. And the U.K. can unilaterally rescind Article 50 if it must.
Extension requires the unanimity of the Members of the Council, essentially the member governments.
It is not “the EU” as a thing making a decision. It is the 27 other governments agreeing.
and a lot of them are fairly angry with the UK and the endless shambles of a Brexit they are forcing on everyone (some are just anti English of course but many more are just sick of this thing).
(yes of course is there was some kind of truly clear UK consensus on a referendum that would give a clear result, then we might guess no one would be blocking. but what are the fucking chances of the Uk government achieving that? - the real world option is more like some last minute blundering into a referendum that would be extremely contested on legitimacy and might just drag out the pain to another Crash Out No Deal again)
A point worth mentioning. But my use of “the EU” is normal shorthand, just as you use “the UK” your next paragraph without detailing the UK parliamentary process.
Of course. And I hope the EU would not just roll over and grant an ill-defined extension without the UK government laying out a clear course of action. Nobody feels they have an obligation to do that. But ultimately I don’t think the EU will stand in the way if the UK shows that it has settled on a decisive plan to resolve matters through an election or second referendum.
If they want to do what is best for the EU as a whole, they should do what it takes to prevent Brexit, as the UK leaving will harm the entire Union. Not nearly as much as it will harm the UK, but that shouldn’t be the point. Also, a no-deal Brexit will harm the EU more than one with a deal, so they shouldn’t want that to happen either.
Obviously, there are plenty of politicians who will want to punish the UK, or at least not act to protect it from itself, but one shouldn’t hope for them to act in a way that will harm their own economy, as well as that of the world, just because we will suffer more.
Without either an extension or the withdrawal of Article 50, no-deal will happen, and that is the worst outcome for everybody.
If the UK really doesn’t get their act together now, I don’t think it would be at all unreasonable for the EU to continue the brinksmanship: no extension without a clear plan for resolution; if you don’t have clear plan, we’re not granting a vague extension - you must rescind Article 50 altogether to avoid crashing out.
That might have seemed a bit plausible if the vote were close. “Let’s tweak it and arm twist to pick up 30 votes.”
No amount of tweaking and arm-twisting is going to get 150 extra votes.
I think that’s right.
Has anyone proposed a second referendum, with perhaps three options, on a single transferable vote?
-
Rescind Article 50 and do a Dallas re-do: the last three years were but a dream.
-
Approve May’s Withdrawal Agreement.
-
Leave the EU with no deal, including no deal on the Irish border.
The reason for suggesting this approach is that it would force the voters to rank their options and you know, consider that maybe there’s upsides and downsides for each one?
Take my opinion for what it’s worth - probably not much - but I see only two possibilities at this point.
*Hard crash-out
*Withdrawing the Articale 50
And I kind of think the first is more likely.
Here’s my reasoning. The EU is not gonna offer any better terms (Ones that suit the Brexiteers, I mean - basically, leave the EU but still reap all the benefits, and have none of the responsibilities.) then what they’ve already done. Renegotiating with that in mind is a non-starter, and that seems to be all that May is planning.
It’s already clear the current deal is not at all acceptable to Parliament. It seems to me that Corbyn is quite happy to let everything collapse, to gain a lasting political advantage - I could be wrong on that, but that’s my read of him.
Maybe one or the other will have the political will to withdraw the Article 50, maybe with the (public) rationale that they’ll try again later to negotiate a better deal, and deal with the political consequences of pissing off the large minority who want Brexit, never mind (or not thinking of) the consequences.
I think withdrawing the Article 50 is the best route for all involved, but then, I don’t see how anybody benefits from Brexit besides a few political loudmouths and faux populists, stirring up their base.
But nobody I’m seeing looks like they’re interested in applying any leadership, and I think that’s why the UK will bumble itself into a hard crash Brexit.
Something of the kind has been discussed in circles that call for a second referendum.
It has much to commend it - not least, that it will find which of the options commands the broadest support. But it’s not that long since the UK, in a refernedum, voted against using the STV system in elections, and most UK voters have never used it in any context. So it’s an unfamiliar and unpopular method in general, and to employ it in a referendum whose basic democratic legitimacy is going to be strongly attacked by those who want the outcome of the 2016 referendum to stand will just give them extra ammunition. It’s a way of making a decision but, to my regret, in the present circumstances I don’t think it’s a way of making a decision that is going to command broad assent or establish a consensus.
Well, so my question wasn’t all that stupid after all. Thanks, all, for the explanations and analyses. Ignorance fought and all that.
:eek:
Who the HELL thought that dog’s breakfast would pass?
This is why I’m against non-public polls on principle.
I’m not convinced by this objection, since the Leave side will obviously fight any second referendum tooth and nail, and dispute the legitimacy of the outcome however it’s structured.
I don’t see the merit in a second referendum if it’s unfit for purpose. The 2011 vote favored keeping first-past-the-post for parliamentary elections, but that’s a different matter. We need to (a) put all options to the electorate without unfairly “splitting” one side, yet (b) be sure of a decisive outcome. I see no fair way to do that other than STV.
It seems to me that the clearest path to a referendum is probably for Labour to change policy and back it. If Labour propose a referendum with STV, then get elected on that basis, the outcome is supported by two layers of democracy.
I think this might be the only path to a reasonable outcome at this stage, but I’m not claiming it’s likely.