Brexit - the next steps

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are a number of ways in which the referendum could be appropriately framed - the point is that all options on the ballot paper should be clear and deliverable by the government and EU - rather than the previous 'anything to anyone' Brexit option on the original referendum.

I think the fairest approach would be a primary and secondary question (this is what happened in the Scottish devolution referendum of 97). The first question would be to accept or reject May's deal. The second question would be what to do if May's deal is rejected, with remain and no deal as the two options.

No deal shouldnt be on any ballot because it means a break in supplies etc. That the state should be committed to since failure is breach of the social contract and to deliberately instigate interruption of supplies should carry a sentence of incarceration.

[jeremyp]

I agree. We don't have either of the main party with a clear position The problem with a referendum though is that if the remain vote split between accept the deal (playing safe) and staying in the result would be for no deal, unless that is kept off the ballot.

I think, if “stay in the EU” was an option on the ballot, it would win. Recent opinion polls suggest that Remain now has the majority and the Brexit vote would be split between no deal and the May deal.

For the vote to be fair, you would have to structure the ballot differently. You’d need either a straight yes or no on the May deal with a follow up question of “if the country rejects the May deal, should we stay in or leave”, or an STV structured vote.

[jakswan]

Or Labour could get a majority or we could be back into minority government territory.

Whichever, a general election will solve nothing. The only vote that would finally resolve whether and/or which type of brexit should happen would be a referendum.

If Labour got a majority then they would do their own deal, no idea what that would be, don't ask them because they don't know either . If there is this mass of support for another referendum then the LibDems would gain loads of seats and enter a coalition with that vote being the price.

Can you really see the wider population voting for extending this endless Brexit row, May's deal puts a line under it and we can move on.

We had a referendum because the majority in Parliament supported us having one, little sign there is enough support for another.

If there was another vote, the question should be May deal or leave with no deal.

[Gordon]

I think the ECJ decision on whether or not Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK could be significant: if so, it could be a quick and clean way of stopping this incarnation of Brexit in its tracks if Westminster has the sense to take it, which doesn't of course prevent the issue of Brexit (or no Brexit) then being a key factor in the next GE now that more is known about what is actually entailed. With the news tonight about the legal advice situation it would probably be a kindness to put this Brexit out of its misery a.s.a.p since it seems to be, to use a cliche, 'toxic' on all fronts.

If it transpires that 'no deal' won't get support in Westminster, which has been said often of late, and given the impasse surrounding the current Brexit, a fresh referendum would be justified so as to provide an informed choice between May's 'deal' and remaining in the UK. The bleating about 'the people made a choice in 2016' just doesn't convince since that was an uninformed choice, and there is now much more information regarding the consequences of leaving the EU.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

If Labour got a majority then they would do their own deal, no idea what that would be, don't ask them because they don't know either

Which is just one of many reasons why a general election will solve nothing.

[ProfessorDavey]

If there was another vote, the question should be May deal or leave with no deal.

What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.

It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.

Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.

It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.

Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.

Again nodeal should not be an option because it interrupts the essential supply chain which I would have thought was illegal.
Unlike a time of war a no deal solution that was manufactured in this country would be a deliberate act of sabotage of the essential supply chain which I would have thought was illegal.

I

[Gordon]

So early indications from the ECJ is that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK - will be interesting to see if there is support for doing this as a quick way out from this current madness that doesn't involve an immediate GE or another referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

So early indications from the ECJ is that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK - will be interesting to see if there is support for doing this as a quick way out from this current madness that doesn't involve an immediate GE or another referendum.

This changes the dynamic massively. The ERG have been working on an assumption that no deal is the default - in other words that all they need to do is talk down the clock until 29th March and block a deal and the outcome will be no deal. This provides an easy mechanism to ensure that no deal is impossible.

[jakswan]

What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.

It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.

A referendum isn't like an election so failed analogy. For another referendum to be granted it has to pass through Parliament and that does not look likely.
 

Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.

What has changed massively?

A slight change in opinion polls is no way to run a country.

Again, prior to 2016 all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP, so they voted, with a massive majority, on granting a referendum. The Govt of the time spent £8m sending everyone in the country a biased document in it were the following:-

"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.

Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.

[jakswan]

Which is just one of many reasons why a general election will solve nothing.

I don't know, it solves May's problem, her party would have to get on board and support the manifesto.

What other options does she have?

[ProfessorDavey]

What has changed massively?

our understanding of what brexit might mean in reality rather than as a completely theoretical, all things to all people, concept.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.

Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.

Why are you so scared of democracy.

If you think that a brexit option would beat remain, then why not trust the people and provide a genuine mandate for an actual brexit rather than a theoretical one.

If you are concerned that remain would be the most popular option and therefore don't want a referendum or want remain removed from the ballot paper then, by definition, you are forcing the country into something they don't want. To do so would be a travesty for democracy and would have very, very far-reaching consequences.

What matters is what people want now, when the real decisions are being taken, the hard decisions that actually have consequences, not what people thought 2 and a half years ago when there was no detail whatsoever on what brexit actually meant.

[jakswan]

Why are you so scared of democracy.

If you think that a brexit option would beat remain, then why not trust the people and provide a genuine mandate for an actual brexit rather than a theoretical one.

If you are concerned that remain would be the most popular option and therefore don't want a referendum or want remain removed from the ballot paper then, by definition, you are forcing the country into something they don't want. To do so would be a travesty for democracy and would have very, very far-reaching consequences.

What matters is what people want now, when the real decisions are being taken, the hard decisions that actually have consequences, not what people thought 2 and a half years ago when there was no detail whatsoever on what brexit actually meant.

It has little to do with outcome frankly I'm BOB, another referendum drags out the same arguments as before. If there is another referendum with remain as an option it would become clear the establishment will never actually let us leave and seriously undermine democracy. We would end up with Farage on the rampage again and who knows what else far right or left groups emerging.

The only thing there is majority for in Parliament for is Norway+ so can't see why that isn't the route being taken.

[ProfessorDavey]

It has little to do with outcome frankly I'm BOB, another referendum drags out the same arguments as before.

No they will be different arguments - ones based on the reality of an achievable brexit not a hypothetical fantasy brexit.

If there is another referendum with remain as an option it would become clear the establishment will never actually let us leave and seriously undermine democracy.

How on earth can it undermine democracy to ask the people to vote - in the words of J K Rowling (paraphrased) - who do you think will be voting - the chinese people!?! 

The only thing there is majority for in Parliament for is Norway+ so can't see why that isn't the route being taken.

I've no idea whether there would be a majority for it - probably not as it doesn't allow end of freedom of movement which many, certainly on the tory benches, think is key. It is easy to think that some hypothetical other option (Canada+++, Norway+-+) will be super popular, but that is largely because they are untested. However Norway (with or without a +, whatever that means) isn't an option so it is an irrelevance.

Where we are now we have to decide between deliverable options and there are only 3, remain, May's deal or no deal. That's what's on the table and as it would appear that parliament cannot decide then the people should. In fact this decision (a real one, unlike 2016) is of such significance for decades that even were parliament to have a clear view the final decision on those three options should be for the people in a referendum.

[SweetPea]

Sometimes you come across unusual comments and this seems one. It is from someone that works in the City and was under an LBC video:

"Brexit is not what the average UK person thinks it is - it has nothing to do with what Nigel Farage says it is or what Theresa May says, or what the media says for that matter. Its has nothing to do with borders, fisheries, or any other reason being spread in referendum.

Brexit has come about for one specific reason, and they all know it - big money and secrecy. Farage, being from the City of London, was the perfect man to front this campaign and was carefully selected by his corporate sponsors to achieve this goal.

'European Union financial transaction tax'. This is what Brexit is all about! Farage, May, the media - they are all lying to you!

Whether people understand this or not is irrelevant - the City of London is a hub for financial secrecy of its banks and its offshore secret tax havens, that's why they have their own police force. Everyone knows that the City of London has always come under scrutiny for allegations of money laundering of drug money, mafia money, and tax evasion/avoidance   and corruption money from many leaders of many countries via several of its offshore financial houses like the islands of Jersey & Guernsey.

What the EUFTT would have done is allow the EU to independently scrutinise all of the allegations and have full power to enforce proceedings against the UK government and the City's financial firms and banks together with its offshore dealings, and to bring taxes on all financial transactions - it would have effectively brought all of this alleged corruption and crime under independent scrutiny away from the City's own police force and lawyers.

This is what it's all about. Farage has been visiting the island of Jersey several times over the past few years to assist his City of London sponsors.

A hard Brexit will happen …. it may take time but I can assure you that a hard Brexit will happen. Jersey has already passed legislation for the hard Brexit - it's a foregone conclusion. They have also changed their system of government over the past 5 years which has been in existence for hundreds of years. "

The above was posted before Ms May gave us the present draft plan, so it'll be interesting to see if the City worker's prediction comes about.   

[jeremyp]

So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.

Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.

Yes the electorate voted to leave two years ago. Since that time, the electorate has changed and we know a lot more about what Leave will entail. If you are in favor of democracy, you would be in favor of the third referendum including a “status quo” option i.e. remain in the EU.

And, no, another referendum would not be a betrayal. There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind having found out that the leaders of Brexit had no idea what they really wanted. Nor would it result in uncertainty. If we have another referendum and we choose to stay in, we will be there for at least a generation until all the politicians have forgotten what a fucking stupid idea Brexit was.

[Stranger]

There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind...

Nobody even has to change their mind for the Brexit majority to disappear: In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody even has to change their mind for the Brexit majority to disappear: In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know.

That's right - it doesn't need a single people to change their mind for the majority in favour of leave to have vanished by next year, and certainly by the end of the withdrawal agreement period. All it needs is the inevitable - that some young people have their 18th birthday and some old people die.

That's one of the reasons why the original result was so problematic - it had an inbuilt demographic shift which would narrow and ultimately erase the winning majority. That the period of time this would happen was short enough that you couldn't be sure that a majority still existed, even without anyone changing their minds, before the result was actually implemented is deeply problematic from a democratic perspective. There is of course an easy way out - put the final deal and the other options to a vote of the people - we'd then be sure that there is a democratic mandate for what is enacted.

[jakswan]

No they will be different arguments - ones based on the reality of an achievable brexit not a hypothetical fantasy brexit.
How on earth can it undermine democracy to ask the people to vote - in the words of J K Rowling (paraphrased) - who do you think will be voting - the chinese people!?! 

It will be seen as 'give peoples vote version 1, get wrong answer, give peoples vote version 2'. Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.

There will be outrage if there is another vote, it will be total carnage, the country will be more divided and that division will get worse regardless of who wins.

Now is the time to compromise, Norway doesn't please everyone but at least it is a compromise.

I've no idea whether there would be a majority for it - probably not as it doesn't allow end of freedom of movement which many, certainly on the tory benches, think is key. It is easy to think that some hypothetical other option (Canada+++, Norway+-+) will be super popular, but that is largely because they are untested. However Norway (with or without a +, whatever that means) isn't an option so it is an irrelevance.

No it is an option, Kinnock junior, Ken Clarke, have advocated for it, these are quite centre normal politicians. It has been offered by EU, all members of EFTA seem keen for it to happen.

Where we are now we have to decide between deliverable options and there are only 3, remain, May's deal or no deal. That's what's on the table and as it would appear that parliament cannot decide then the people should. In fact this decision (a real one, unlike 2016) is of such significance for decades that even were parliament to have a clear view the final decision on those three options should be for the people in a referendum.

You would put no deal on a ballot paper? Wow.

[jakswan]

Yes the electorate voted to leave two years ago. Since that time, the electorate has changed and we know a lot more about what Leave will entail. If you are in favor of democracy, you would be in favor of the third referendum including a “status quo” option i.e. remain in the EU.

And, no, another referendum would not be a betrayal. There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind having found out that the leaders of Brexit had no idea what they really wanted. Nor would it result in uncertainty. If we have another referendum and we choose to stay in, we will be there for at least a generation until all the politicians have forgotten what a fucking stupid idea Brexit was.

I think you are confusing opinion poll and referendum.

It will be seen as a betrayal by many.

[Roses]

I think you are confusing opinion poll and referendum.

It will be seen as a betrayal by many.

Only the gullible twits who listened to the siren voices saying how much better off the UK would be by leaving the EU, when it appears we would be much worse off.

[jakswan]

Only the gullible twits who listened to the siren voices saying how much better off the UK would be by leaving the EU, when it appears we would be much worse off.

So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?

Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.

[Nearly Sane]

So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?

Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.

You mean like this

 'Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.'

[Aruntraveller]

So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?

Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.

Not often given to quoting the Bible but let he (or she) who is without sin etc.