|
Post by michael on Jan 16, 2019 21:41:14 GMT
That’s all very well but if you want to get back in to the EU how do you propose that happens? Ignoring the result doesn’t seem to be a realistic alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jan 16, 2019 21:58:53 GMT
Not quite getting what you're not getting Alex - either side would require 60% to win in such a vote. I think I just heard (in the background, on the radio, so not gospel!) second vote is edging to becoming more likely. Nothing about changing the winning percentage required though. How is it possible for either side needing 60% to win? Are you saying that if it’s 55% to remain we would still leave because remain didn’t reach the 60% required to overturn the first referendum result? I think where you’re confused by my point is that you don’t realise that leavers see remainers as their opponents and so a referendum they did not win would be a win for remain. It’s not as binary as just the leavers either winning or losing. That’s why you cannot have a clause saying we need 60% of voters to say leave in order go ahead with Brexit as that would mean the leave side only need 41% to win the referendum and that would be seen as undemocractic. I have phrased that badly; my understanding of this proposal (Mark's? I can't recall right now) is that if either Remain or Leave are to win, whichever one it is would require at least 60% of the (turnout) vote to win. So, if Remain get 60% they win, and if Leave get 60% they win. However, what happens if neither side achieve this I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 17, 2019 13:28:58 GMT
How is it possible for either side needing 60% to win? Are you saying that if it’s 55% to remain we would still leave because remain didn’t reach the 60% required to overturn the first referendum result? I think where you’re confused by my point is that you don’t realise that leavers see remainers as their opponents and so a referendum they did not win would be a win for remain. It’s not as binary as just the leavers either winning or losing. That’s why you cannot have a clause saying we need 60% of voters to say leave in order go ahead with Brexit as that would mean the leave side only need 41% to win the referendum and that would be seen as undemocractic. I have phrased that badly; my understanding of this proposal (Mark's? I can't recall right now) is that if either Remain or Leave are to win, whichever one it is would require at least 60% of the (turnout) vote to win. So, if Remain get 60% they win, and if Leave get 60% they win. However, what happens if neither side achieve this I don't know. My point is that leave not achieving 60% would be a win for remain, even if it was 59/41 in favour of leave. That’s why they would cry foul at the bar for a remain win effectively being set at 41%. That’s why it’s impossible to set the bar for winning at 60% for either side. I totally understand the point that this is a massive decision and so a decisive vote in favour of it should be sought, but it’s such a divisive issue that 51% will always have to be the point at which either side wins.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 17, 2019 13:59:58 GMT
With any referendum there has to be a threshold and for the initial vote it was said either side only needed to win by a single vote so as long as the threshold was agreed by all sides then it would be the case that that rule should apply. I can’t see see such thresholds being embraced by any parties at the moment. The SNP would never go for it as when they came to hold another vote on membership of the UK it makes their job harder and then there is the question of who would need to clear a threshold in a rerun of the Brexit vote. As leave won last time would there need to be a win of greater than 60% for remain to overturn the last result?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 17, 2019 14:02:27 GMT
Best I've heard suggested is to have two votes (which have unfortunately at this point to be simple majority votes):
1. Leave or Remain
followed by (only if Leave wins):
2. Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit.
And the entire electorate gets to vote in both rounds - ie the second vote is not merely among those for voted for Leave in the first vote.
If Remain wins first vote, then no second vote.
The flaw (not in my view but I accept it's a downside if you are a hardcore Brexiter) is that it almost certainly rules out a hard Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 17, 2019 14:06:36 GMT
Don’t you have to define what soft Brexit means for such a vote?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 17, 2019 14:15:27 GMT
Don’t you have to define what soft Brexit means for such a vote? Not really. For the purpose of a vote, it just has to mean "not no deal". That would clarify that there is no democratic mandate for the "come hell or high water Brexit" of the Brexit-ultras' dreams.
The general public, in my personal view, almost certainly doesn't give a toss about customs unions or any of the other stuff which gets politicians worked up. They just want to be listened to, but not at any meaningful expense to themselves.
Despite all the hoo-haa, "leave at all costs" remains (if you'll pardon the pun) a pretty niche view. I'm pretty sure most Brexit voters expect their elected representatives to find a way to strike an acceptable compromise with Europe, by which I mean something that gets the UK out without completely wrecking itself in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 17, 2019 14:21:41 GMT
Don’t you have to define what soft Brexit means for such a vote?
Surely ALL of it needs to be clarified - do you really think most people understand any of, for example, the implications of a 'proper', no deal Brexit and what the differences are between that and a soft Brexit?
Anything like this is going to be a complete mess because all that will happen is the politicians who (in this example) want a hard Brexit will denounce the experts again and the media will go and take sides again.
There's no way most of the population are EVER going to be able to make an accurate, informed decision on such an important issue because either a) they're just not that interested, b) their chosen media source has its own predetermined position and that's all they'll get or c) their Facebook feed is full of people who believe one way or another and they'll simply exclude opinions that don't tie in with their own.
I doubt there are many places where there are remotely sensible conversations going on.....
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 17, 2019 14:28:23 GMT
Don’t you have to define what soft Brexit means for such a vote? Not really. For the purpose of a vote, it just has to mean "not no deal". That would clarify that there is no democratic mandate for the "come hell or high water Brexit" of the Brexit-ultras' dreams.
The general public, in my personal view, almost certainly doesn't give a toss about customs unions or any of the other stuff which gets politicians worked up. They just want to be listened to, but not at any meaningful expense to themselves.
Despite all the hoo-haa, "leave at all costs" remains (if you'll pardon the pun) a pretty niche view. I'm pretty sure most Brexit voters expect their elected representatives to find a way to strike an acceptable compromise with Europe, by which I mean something that gets the UK out without completely wrecking itself in the process.
That’s quite an interesting idea, actually. I’m more inclined to think a second vote is on that cards but the question will be the sticking point.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 17, 2019 17:45:24 GMT
Best I've heard suggested is to have two votes (which have unfortunately at this point to be simple majority votes): 1. Leave or Remain followed by (only if Leave wins): 2. Hard Brexit vs Soft Brexit. And the entire electorate gets to vote in both rounds - ie the second vote is not merely among those for voted for Leave in the first vote. If Remain wins first vote, then no second vote. The flaw (not in my view but I accept it's a downside if you are a hardcore Brexiter) is that it almost certainly rules out a hard Brexit. In a sense that is what the position is already - we had the first vote. Leave won. We left it to MP's - under our representative democracy - to ascertain the second part. The issue now is that they can't decide the second part and some of them are still trying to refight to first part. May finally offered cross party talks after her defeat. But it now seems that all the other parties will make demands as pre-conditions that makes any cross party talks impossible. Go figure that one. Corbyn can apparently engage with Hams and the IRA, but not the Conservatives. Sturgeon won't talk unless a second referendum is pre-agreed as the outcome. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 17, 2019 19:03:52 GMT
Yes, but since the first vote was held, much more light has been shed on what lies within the realm of the possible and what does not. It is not undemocratic to hold another vote three years later. Otherwise elections would be pretty undemocratic: no one would accept "you chose the Tories, so now you live with them even though you now realise their manifesto was a work of fiction".
If people haven't changed their minds, the result won't change. So where is the problem?
I would accept a second vote to leave unreservedly. I'd still think it fundamentally wrong but I could no longer argue that the issues at stake hadn't had a very thorough airing. It would be a case of having taken the horse to water but not being able to make it drink.
Brexiteers should have the same courage of their convictions. That they do not makes me think they doubt that their fantasy still has quite the hold on the popular imagination that it once had.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 17, 2019 20:20:18 GMT
Brexiteers should have the same courage of their convictions. That they do not makes me think they doubt that their fantasy still has quite the hold on the popular imagination that it once had. I doubt that many who voted "leave" thought that the Government would make such a pig's breakfast of it. Three years down the line and still not a common agreement of what we should be seeking in our exit strategy, let alone proper negotiation for a smooth exit.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 17, 2019 20:42:28 GMT
I doubt that many who voted "leave" thought that the Government would make such a pig's breakfast of it. Three years down the line and still not a common agreement of what we should be seeking in our exit strategy, let alone proper negotiation for a smooth exit. I agree the Government appears to have made a real mess of this but all the Brexiteer's assertions are based on the assumption that the EU should give them what they want. This is a long way short of the EU's position and any negotiation has to take that into account. I don't know but perhaps Mrs May's Brexit is the best we are going to get. I can never see the EU giving us tariff free trade with them and at the same time allow us to go off and negotiate deals with other countries which in any way disadvantage or prejudice the EU. You can't have your cake and eat it was said very early on in the negotiations and I believe that still stands.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 18, 2019 10:04:17 GMT
But if it is the best we can get, don't we owe it to ourselves to ask whether it is worth it?
Objectively, MMB is significantly worse for us than being in the EU on our current terms.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 18, 2019 11:07:30 GMT
But if it is the best we can get, don't we owe it to ourselves to ask whether it is worth it? Objectively, MMB is significantly worse for us than being in the EU on our current terms. In a word yes.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 18, 2019 14:06:33 GMT
I honestly think that leave would win again.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 21, 2019 12:28:23 GMT
I honestly think that leave would win again. But that's as valid a reason to hold another referendum as any other. It resolves the point about whether we are really still a "Leave population" as Liam Fox claims.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 21, 2019 12:53:26 GMT
I honestly think that leave would win again. Sadly, I think you're right.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 21, 2019 13:08:53 GMT
I honestly think that leave would win again. But that's as valid a reason to hold another referendum as any other. It resolves the point about whether we are really still a "Leave population" as Liam Fox claims. It would be an opportunity to be explicit about expectations of either outcome should it be in our out.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 21, 2019 13:35:57 GMT
Indeed. So I really see no reason not to do it, unless you fear the outcome.
And at this point, "Project Fear" does come into play.
Only it's the Brexiters running it this time with their dire warnings of civil unrest and betrayal.
Amazing just how blithely hypocritical people can be.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 29, 2019 22:07:55 GMT
What the fuck happens now?
They voted to not delay Brexit and voted for May’s alternative deal, but the EU have said they won’t negotiate. Surely this means we are heading for a no deal!?
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jan 29, 2019 23:06:28 GMT
A delay to the March deadline for a couple of months to get everything in order followed by another delay until the end of the year followed by another delay until 2021 followed by a delay so long we all forget brexit and it all goes away
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 30, 2019 7:15:51 GMT
What the fuck happens now? They voted to not delay Brexit and voted for May’s alternative deal, but the EU have said they won’t negotiate. Surely this means we are heading for a no deal!? So many different factions with different goals. It's about as successful as herding cats and we now move in to the very dangerous game with the EU of who blinks first.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 30, 2019 8:13:50 GMT
What the fuck happens now? They voted to not delay Brexit and voted for May’s alternative deal, but the EU have said they won’t negotiate. Surely this means we are heading for a no deal!? So many different factions with different goals. It's about as successful as herding cats and we now move in to the very dangerous game with the EU of who blinks first. Unfortunately, by taking a no deal scenario off the table, we're in a Mexican standoff where everyone else knows our gun is not loaded.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 30, 2019 8:17:25 GMT
So many different factions with different goals. It's about as successful as herding cats and we now move in to the very dangerous game with the EU of who blinks first. Unfortunately, by taking a no deal scenario off the table, we're in a Mexican standoff where everyone else knows our gun is not loaded. No deal hasn’t been taken off the table.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 30, 2019 8:52:14 GMT
It’s getting somewhat farcical now. May has to go back to the EU and remind them that no deal is bad for their members too and that renegotiating is the only way to protect their members from the fall out of a no deal Brexit. I know some of the unicorn salesmen are now saying that no deal won’t be a problem (Ian Duncan-Smith I believe declared that no jobs would be lost on the same morning that the EMA confirmed it was leaving Canary Wharf taking 900 jobs with it) but no deal is not better than a bad deal so both our government and the EU need to sort this out, even if it does mean some uncomfortable concessions are to be made.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 30, 2019 9:55:22 GMT
...the EMA confirmed it was leaving Canary Wharf taking 900 jobs with it) but no deal is not better than a bad deal so both our government and the EU need to sort this out... The EMA were leaving even if we had a deal as they have to be based in an EU country. It's hard but I think that everybody has to CTFD in Parliament and on the more hysterical sides of both sides of the arguments. Look at history. All EU deals are done at the last second of the last minute of the last day, after everyone pulls an all-nighter. I've lost count of the number of times the news reported that EU leaders came our bleary eyed at 4am from this or that discussion and that an agreement was hailed etc etc. So, we leave on Friday 29 March at 11pm. It is still January. There are weeks to go yet. The EU aren't even close to negotiating seriously on anything yet - they are still in the dictating terms phase of the ritual, as they will be until mid March at the earliest. So, we hold our nerve. A deal will be done, but not yet. Parliamentarians having hysterical hissy fits and playing to the galleries are not going to help.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 30, 2019 10:14:25 GMT
...the EMA confirmed it was leaving Canary Wharf taking 900 jobs with it) but no deal is not better than a bad deal so both our government and the EU need to sort this out... The EMA were leaving even if we had a deal as they have to be based in an EU country. It's hard but I think that everybody has to CTFD in Parliament and on the more hysterical sides of both sides of the arguments. Look at history. All EU deals are done at the last second of the last minute of the last day, after everyone pulls an all-nighter. I've lost count of the number of times the news reported that EU leaders came our bleary eyed at 4am from this or that discussion and that an agreement was hailed etc etc. So, we leave on Friday 29 March at 11pm. It is still January. There are weeks to go yet. The EU aren't even close to negotiating seriously on anything yet - they are still in the dictating terms phase of the ritual, as they will be until mid March at the earliest. So, we hold our nerve. A deal will be done, but not yet. Parliamentarians having hysterical hissy fits and playing to the galleries are not going to help. That's all very well but I can hear the sound of the nutters in the ERG (that's an ironic name surely?) rubbing their hands at the prospect of simply saying 'NO' to everything that gets proposed because if they do that they can effectively stall us into a no deal Brexit which, for some reason I still can't fathom, they think will be an excellent result. I think yesterday means that the remainder of Parliament are going to have to start acting like grown ups and at some point stop voting along party lines to avoid us crashing out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2019 11:48:12 GMT
I think the ERG are being hard nosed to force another referendum or a straight failure of Brexit so we just stay. Simple tactic, hard nosed and frighten the populace by continually blabbing about how they will not budge. It does not help that parliament is working with them on this, at least to a degree. The policy of the EU has always been to spoil and stop Brexit, if we leave, who will be next. Hard to take this 100% seriously but there is a lot of promotion for the federal state being pushed by the German and French leadership, including the standing EU military which is something the Russians are worried about too.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 30, 2019 11:56:59 GMT
Unfortunately, by taking a no deal scenario off the table, we're in a Mexican standoff where everyone else knows our gun is not loaded. No deal hasn’t been taken off the table. That’s how I read it. The MPs have implied they voted against no deal, but the reality is that they have given May a mandate to renegotiate. By voting not to delay Brexit, no deal is a high possibility if the EU tell us to sod off.
|
|