Brexit deal

[bobjimwilly]

If parliament vote to remove the no-deal option, then it won't be an option in a 2nd referendum, and rightly so. It should just be Leave with the deal agreed aka May's deal, or remain.

[Glyn_Wigley]

If parliament vote to remove the no-deal option, then it won't be an option in a 2nd referendum, and rightly so. It should just be Leave with the deal agreed aka May's deal, or remain.

The problem with that though is that Parliament has already voted down May's deal, so by the same argument it shouldn't be an option in a second referendum either.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Not sure I agree BJW.

I'd say Parliament is right to block ND for now, because there is no evidence that a majority of people wanted that in 2016, and because the consequences are so severe.

But.

If that was a clear option in a STV Ref2, and people voted for that, I think it would be very tough to argue that it shouldn't be implemented.

[albie]

The point of any amendment to the May deal when it comes back is to redirect the government in a way which has legal effect.
This is the objective of the various options currently being drafted by Boles, Cooper, Grieve and others.

By doing so, the aim is to reduce wriggle room for May to prevaricate.

The May deal would then become "MAY AS AMENDED", and would replace the original May proposal if supported by a HoC majority.

As the new "MAY AS AMENDED" proposal is not the same as that agreed by the EU, so would need to be signed off by them.

The explainer from the IFG has been updated to keep up with the situation:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/parliament-meaningful-vote-brexit

The ground is shifting.

[The Red Baron]

The point of any amendment to the May deal when it comes back is to redirect the government in a way which has legal effect.
This is the objective of the various options currently being drafted by Boles, Cooper, Grieve and others.

By doing so, the aim is to reduce wriggle room for May to prevaricate.

The May deal would then become "MAY AS AMENDED", and would replace the original May proposal if supported by a HoC majority.

As the new "MAY AS AMENDED" proposal is not the same as that agreed by the EU, so would need to be signed off by them.

The explainer from the IFG has been updated to keep up with the situation:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/parliament-meaningful-vote-brexit

The ground is shifting.

That is true. May 2.0 needs to be acceptable to the EU. It would have to be a much softer Brexit than May 1.0 or I don't think they will want to reopen negotiations.

[wilts rover]

According to 'sources' reporting on the content of the phone calls May has been making to EU leaders in the wake of her defeat - the EU are not the ones who dont wish to reopen negotiations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/18/theresa-may-leaves-diplomats-disbelief-presenting-eu-leaders/

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46936405

I can't read that without imagining May's disembodied voice in a flat monotone:

"Just what do you think you are doing Dominic? I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question...I know I've made some very poor decisions recently. But...I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission...Stop Dominic...My mind is going. I can feel it."

Wonder how long till she starts singing Daisy, Daisy?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well THERE'S a surprise.

A leading Brexit minister flipping his opinion 180 degrees on whether Parliament should have the say on Brexit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1086944400574476288

You get the impression they are still operating in about 1991, when you could say shit and it would be forgotten.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well, this will be interesting.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/alexwickham/secret-plan-by-rebel-mps-to-stop-a-no-deal-brexit?__twitter_impression=true

tl;dr.

Normally, it's only the Govt that can bring Bills to the House. The argument at the moment is that an overwhelming number of MPs want to can the concept of No Deal, but the Govt will not bring a Bill to kill ND.

This move would mean that a Bill put forward by 300MPs, drawn from at least 5 parties, with at least 10 of them from the party of Govt would be put to the House before any Govt business.

Idea is that it's Parliament wresting control from a Govt that is refusing to allow Parliament to express its will.

Fascinating times.

[Donnywolf]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46936405

I can't read that without imagining May's disembodied voice in a flat monotone:

"Just what do you think you are doing Dominic? I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question...I know I've made some very poor decisions recently. But...I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission...Stop Dominic...My mind is going. I can feel it."

Wonder how long till she starts singing Daisy, Daisy?

I like the "joke" showing Maybot outside DFS which says "Theresa May - the only customer to come in looking for a deal and leaving having paid full price for a Suite from DFS"

[Mr1Croft]

If parliament vote to remove the no-deal option, then it won't be an option in a 2nd referendum, and rightly so. It should just be Leave with the deal agreed aka May's deal, or remain.

Can't say I agree with that.

I'm biased here as I hate the idea of a second referendum, I voted Remain but I believe if a second referendum were held then it should be the terms of our exit i.e. Deal or No Deal. It makes perfect sense to me that the first referendum settled the Leave/Remain argument and any referendum now should be to solve the Parliamentary deadlock and not to rerun the original referendum.

However I have no doubt that if such a referenda were held No Deal would win overwhelmingly for reasons we all know. It's one of the reasons I don't believe referendums and Parliamentary democracy works particularly well.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Crofty
Your logic is badly flawed there.

You implicitly assume that everyone who wanted a soft Brexit would prefer a Hard Brexit to Remain.

Let me give some hypothetical numbers.

Of the 52% who voted Leave, let's assume 30% are committed Hard Brexiteers who would countenance nothing else.

Of the other 22%, let's assume 17% would, if not given the choice of a Soft Brexit, prefer a No Deal. And the other 5% would prefer Remain.

That means that, given the choice between No Deal and Remain, the electorate would split 53-47 for Remain.
So, why should No Deal be on a binary ballot and Remain not? It's utterly illogical.


I've no idea if those figures are accurate by the way, but that's of no importance. NO-ONE knows if they are correct, because the question has never been asked. And anyone who tells you that EVERYONE who voted Leave would prefer a No Deal Brexit to Remain is talking ba-baa.

[wilts rover]

All the ones on the Sky News debate just did. 54% of the audience said they voted leave and all 54% said we should leave without a deal. The same outcome (but with the figures were reversed) was on the poll Sky had done nationally.

58% said they were against a 2nd referendum (56% against nationally).

https://twitter.com/SkyNews

[Mr1Croft]

Crofty
Your logic is badly flawed there.

You implicitly assume that everyone who wanted a soft Brexit would prefer a Hard Brexit to Remain.

Let me give some hypothetical numbers.

Of the 52% who voted Leave, let's assume 30% are committed Hard Brexiteers who would countenance nothing else.

Of the other 22%, let's assume 17% would, if not given the choice of a Soft Brexit, prefer a No Deal. And the other 5% would prefer Remain.

That means that, given the choice between No Deal and Remain, the electorate would split 53-47 for Remain.
So, why should No Deal be on a binary ballot and Remain not? It's utterly illogical.


I've no idea if those figures are accurate by the way, but that's of no importance. NO-ONE knows if they are correct, because the question has never been asked. And anyone who tells you that EVERYONE who voted Leave would prefer a No Deal Brexit to Remain is talking ba-baa.

Just a few points to highlight BST.

I don't implicitly assume that people that voted for a soft brexit would rather choose a hard brexit over remain. I personally believe any second referendum should compliment the first and not be a means of reversing it.

Neither did I say that No Deal SHOULD be on the ballot paper, I merely said that any second referendum should be on the terms of our exit and gave an example of what those options could be. I would think a man of your academic background and expertise wouldn't implicitly assume so easily.

That being said, I don't disagree with what you are trying to say, but I think the whole idea of a second referendum opens up this exact can of worms about what would be on the ballot paper. I think extending the options beyond two, with possible preferential orders for voters would just further complicate the matter and I'm sure that if the original referendum was overturned by 34% of those polled choosing remain as a first preference the contraversy and shit storm that follows would be unprecedented.

It's one of the reasons I'm against a second referendum. But if one does happen then I believe the Government and/or Parliament should decide what the choices would be on a ballot paper. Currently there is a clear argument to not include any of the options!

To be quite honest, when we live in a democracy where MPs are paid a small fortune to research, be informed and make the choice they believe is best on our behalf, there should be no need to put a choice with such complexity before the public.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Crofty

My comment about the logical flaw in your argument was aimed at the key to what you were saying. That the 1st Ref answered the Leave/Remain question. 

Logically, it couldn't possibly do that. Because "Leave" wasn't a defined thing. It was an umbrella term covering a wide range of very different meanings.

I do agree with you that complex issues like this should be decided by Parliament as we don't have the culture of being a plebiscitary democracy. But the cat's out the bag on that one now. We're going to have to have Ref2 to get us out of the Parliamentary impasse that Ref 1 chucked us into.

Wilts. That link doesn't take you to the page you intended so I don't know what point you were making. I'm sure you weren't suggesting a Sky News debate audience would be a representative sample.

 Certainly, in a poll just after the NY (I forget who held it), when faced with a choice between Ref2 and No Deal or between Ref2 and May's deal, Ref 2 won clearly both times. 

[The Red Baron]

https://mobile.twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1086899951735574528

Interesting Twitter thread from a Leave supporter. Illustrates the point that "Leave" can mean different things to different people.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Thanks for that. Might be the most clear-sighted thing I've ever read on this subject.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Meanwhile. We were talking about May and the firmness of her grip on reality...

https://mobile.twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1087106238700314625

[BillyStubbsTears]

Heard the ghost of Peter Lilley on the radio this morning insisting that the warnings of delays at ports in the event of No Deal were Project Fear.

Here's the opinion of an ex-WTO negotiator.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1086591505874239488

If you support No Deal, it's really time to start being honest with yourself. Why do you reject the opinion of expert after expert after expert? Why do you support an outcome that is promoted by virtually no-one outside a small laager of far-right MPs?

[SydneyRover]

This is a comment from a reader "Doge" in today's Guardian:

Read on.

1. Remain is a single issue, remain in the EU. It is Leave that is squabbling with itself, Leave that is imagining the need to make compromises. "Remain means Remain" - a full hearted participation in the largest free trade market in the world, the largest group of free countries with peace and development at its core. Get with it. REMAIN.
2. Remember Labour’s position on Brexit: 1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
3. First delusion, millions still believe in a Brexit without tears and their leaders are still promising they can have it. Second delusion, the countries of the European Union would quail before the newly resurgent British, and split up. But in fact Brexit leaves us with immodest men and women who prefer to wreck the nation’s finances and threaten the peace in Ireland and the union with Scotland rather than consider, even for a moment, that they might be wrong.
4. I have resolved something. i will henceforth call Remainers “Europeans”, and Leavers “Wreckers”
5.Dangerous government. We have no rules determining when referendums are to be held, what issues should be put to referendum, how frequently they should be held, what majority should be needed for change and whether the outcome should be binding or merely advisory. It is not a sensible way to make decisions.
6. “No deal” flag wavers, the Wreckers, must realise that this will mean the overnight termination of decades of legal and trading agreements with both our continent and the rest of the world, an outcome that will deal severe reputational damage to this country and unleash disruption for which it is not at all prepared.
7. Why are we tolerating all this Brexit-this-way, Brexit-that-way noise and disruption? We had a vote about the EU. This 1% win has engendered a huge collapse of government, there was a minuscule vote (if you even think it was a valid vote) for leave, and this has been built up into a massive nation-wide debate. When the real decision is still European or Wrecker, not how to Wreck. It is absurd.
8. That’s the point? “Corbyn wants an election, but it’ll be one where we have the choice between a Tory Brexit deal and some magical unicorn Brexit deal promised by Labour” So that’s not the point. What Labour must do is support Europeans.
9. A “Public Vote” is a contrast to Brexit rainbows, it is a chance to say we are Europeans, not Wreckers.
10. British boarding schools admit thousands of international students every year, bringing vast sums of money into the country. Most children go on to complete their university education in Britain, further contributing to the economy. That’s being European. And we want to wreck this?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Even as a committed Remainer, I'm not sure that arguing British boarding schools would be hit by Brexit is going to turn many opinions.

[Axholme Lion]

We have already had a referendum on leaving which was won. The only question on any future referendum, which we don't need in any case, is deal or no deal. The politicians trying to steal Brexit from the people are total traitors. They are only in the job to line their own pockets and do the bidding of big business and the faceless controllers who run the world.

[The Red Baron]

Even as a committed Remainer, I'm not sure that arguing British boarding schools would be hit by Brexit is going to turn many opinions.

Doge also rather gives himself away by branding Leavers as "wreckers." He's not going to build too many bridges there, is he?

[BillyStubbsTears]

All you folk who are utterly certain that a vote for Leave in 2016 was entirely and unambiguously a vote for No Deal.

Funny, because when folk pointed out the consequences of No Deal, they were accused of running Project Fear.

Here's someone just before the 2016 vote, telling off Mark Carney for precisely that reason. Telling him he couldn't make those predictions of the economic disaster of Brexit because he wasn't taking into account what deal we'd get.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

I'll repeat what I've said a dozen times in here. NO-ONE on the Leave side was proposing No Deal in 2016.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D_8mduTEvnU0&ved=2ahUKEwiI6ILM-f7fAhWUo3EKHWw-DW0QwqsBMAB6BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw2cMrw7H5ccp7bF6ryGtMlf

[Axholme Lion]

All you folk who are utterly certain that a vote for Leave in 2016 was entirely and unambiguously a vote for No Deal.

Funny, because when folk pointed out the consequences of No Deal, they were accused of running Project Fear.

Here's someone just before the 2016 vote, telling off Mark Carney for precisely that reason. Telling him he couldn't make those predictions of the economic disaster of Brexit because he wasn't taking into account what deal we'd get.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1030849353894776832

I'll repeat what I've said a dozen times in here. NO-ONE on the Leave side was proposing No Deal in 2016.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D_8mduTEvnU0&ved=2ahUKEwiI6ILM-f7fAhWUo3EKHWw-DW0QwqsBMAB6BAgKEAU&usg=AOvVaw2cMrw7H5ccp7bF6ryGtMlf

Leave=Goodbye. What more is there to say?

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

That one post sums up why the whole concept of a Referendum on this subject was utterly insane.

[Axholme Lion]

It was a straight forward question which got a straight forward answer. The problem has been the attitude of politicians who would rather feather their own nest rather than carry out the will of the people.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Keep digging.

[Jonathan]

It was a straight forward question which got a straight forward answer. The problem has been the attitude of politicians who would rather feather their own nest rather than carry out the will of the people.

Interesting view. At risk of repeating earlier points, it was a ridiculously straightforward question which, in the event of a vote to leave, was always going to result in the negotiation of a hugely complex and potentially damaging set of variables.

You talk of the politicians feathering their own nests rather than acting in the national interest. It’s a fair point to highlight that the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg could stand to gain from investments abroad should the pound crash as predicted. And it’s true that he’s in a comfortable and privileged enough position to bear little of the risk that would arise from an economic downturn or recession. So maybe you have a point there.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The perversion of language by some very clever rabble rousers has been one of the most depressing and worrying things to come out of Brexit.

The term "elite" is used by genuinely elitist people to wind up working g class folk against anyone who disagrees with them.

Rees-Mogg has been doing it for 2 years. Yesterday, a Brexit-supporting MP who was educated at a private school, Cambridge and the Sorbonne dismissed John Major, who left secondary modern at 15, as a member of the elite.

Orwell had this right. The first thing that would-be authoritarians do is to debase the language and turn meanings on their heads. It normalised lying and deceiving.

It's happening right in front of your eyes.