UKC

Once again;

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/all-options-rule...

this was in January!

Plus ca change.

I laughed. Given what a f*cked-up mess were in, that's pretty remarkable.

Thanks.

What I don’t get is why they didn’t ask all the MP’s to each just rank all the options. Add up the ranking scores and eliminate the least favourite and continue in that vane until there is only one option left.

Wont that arrive at the what Parliament deems the best compromise?

It would be a bit of a fanny about but you’d have an answer in a day or two.

We need to do something...eventually.

edit: Isn’t that how the Tories elect their leader? Perhaps not a great selling point for the idea...

I wonder what would happen if we got to April 11th with May's deal rejected and nothing else on the table? Would parliament vote to revoke article 50 rather than go down in history as the parliament which completely f***** the country by allowing no deal to happen?

The no.1 rule in our parliament is to pretend that sane voting systems don’t exist. Imagine the carnage if the plebs thought there were options aside from FPTP!

But as I said in my thread

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/deal_is_not_a_deal-702240?v=1#x...

many (most?) of the MPs don't seem to know the different between the withdrawal agreement and the final negotiated deal with the EU. 

Some of these options were to do with the current withdrawal agreement (or cancelling brexit) and some were to do with the final negotiated settlement.  They were therefore voting on apples and oranges.

The sooner someone tells the MPs they don't even understand the difference between the withdrawal agreement and the final settlement the better.  They are completely clueless or just being awkward. 

I cannot stand Corbyn but like him even less for deliberately confusing the two things - everything he recommends is about the final settlement and nothing to do with the withdrawal agreement.  He is deliberately playing politics as he knows the general population do not understand the difference.

And why the press do nothing to try to explain this I do not know.

I think the MP's understand that the terms of the Brexit deal define the terms of the subsequent negotiations. Don't you?

The plebs did get told, then we choose to stick with fptp because at the time we didn't like Nick Clegg. If only we'd learned our lesson with referendums then. I think in future referendums/popularity contents we should just have a vote on who to egg. The brexit referendum would have been much better if it was a choice on the ballot between who got the biggest yolking Cameron or Farage. Maybe a 100 eggs, Cameron would have got 52 and Farage 48. Who knows, it might have brought the country together.

There have not been enough eggs layed in the whole evolutionary history of hens for the egging deserved by the lying brexiteers who have got us into this shit hole.

That ought to come on Monday. The intervention by parliament was designed as a two day, two stage process. Day one was a matter of feeling one's way towards the better supported options, day two is expected to be a more focused effort to secure a winner and a majority by means of an alternative voting system, as yet not defined.

Meanwhile, May has sacrificed her Queen in the hope of having one of her two Pawns promoted to a Knight, but now finds herself in check and no longer able to make any meaningful move.

Possibly, although they rejected that idea to didn't they?

I think I have worked out the perfect solution to this Brexit mess.

Everyone who wants to remain should go and live in Northern Ireland and the Northern Irish should come over to the main land. How could that not work?

I agree that the terms of the withdrawal agreement set the tone for the final negotiated settlement but it does no more than that.  The main purpose of the withdrawal agreement (in my view) is to ensure a smooth transition that does not send the UK off a cliff.  The thing that really matters is the long term relationship with the EU and this can and may be very different to whatever is agreed in the withdrawal agreement.

Yesterday MPs were voting for a mixture of withdrawal agreement options and final negotiated settlement deals.  They are different things.  The EU knows this, hence why they are so confused about the utter stupidity of our MPs.  I still do not believe our MPs understand this, or as the case with some MPs they are deliberately confusing the two for political gain.

You do start to wonder why we are paying professional decision takers a very good wage to act on our behalf. 

The very definition of a career in politics must be to communicate, debate and decide. Compromise must play a part in that. 

The problem with splitting the two is that once we're out we're out. So if you don't know what the future relationship will look like or you don't like the direction it's heading (as per the political declaration) then the best thing to do is to block the WA and try to either prevent Brexit or to influence the future direction, e.g. by committing the government to a customs union.

This is even more true now that May is likely to stand down once it's passed and so the future relationship is going to be dictated by one of the harder Brexit Tories.

Yes, but they were voting for each proposal last night by ticking a list without knowing the results of any of the other seven votes.  You'd get a different result if there were separate votes and the results of the previous ones were known before voting on the next.  It was a way of finding the most popular proposals to refine the process for today's votes. 

They still wouldn't ratify it once a compromise were found. You can maybe get them to play the hypothetical whittling game (though watching the furious bellowing of the tory back benches last night at the attempt to achieve consensus I'm doubtful) but at the end of it faced with an option most won't like they won't vote for it because they all know failing to do so puts their preferred option among all the others back on the table.

We're full steam ahead for no deal now with the controls disabled, there is within both big parties clearly no hint of a desire for compromise, this is now a simple power struggle within and between the parties with the rest of the country caught square in the crossfire. They know full well it'll cost them but FPTP will preserve their rotten husks long enough to lick their wounds, ward of electoral reform and rebuild.

jk

Or how about everyone who wants to leave just, well, leaves? Putin's Russia or Trump's US might embrace them

So, on 11th April, when faced with the stright choice of no deal or revoking article 50, it will be very interesting to see what a parliament which wants to remain and which overwhelmingly doesn't want no deal will do.

I think we're seeing our answer quite clearly now: no.

By a small majority they'll opt to let us burn to preserve the borderline insane tory grass-roots machinery and their personal prospects at the next election knowing the membership is largely insulated from the consequences by age and wealth. What happens to the rest of electorate will be a concern but without those purple-tory door knockers and donors they won't get another chance to make their excuses to the electorate.

I'd hoped there were more decent people both sides of the house but now were at the crunch it is job and party first whatever the consequences. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, they are selected for this behaviour above all else.

jk

Your view is wrong, the agreement (whatever it may end up as) is nothing to do with a smooth transition. It sets out the commitments both sides make regarding the future relationship and the word commitment is used in the legal sense as the agreement is a form of international treaty as it is an agreement made under the terms of the EU Treaty. Minor adjustments can be made but major changes will be extremely difficult. There are plenty of views on the legal position of the Agreement to be read and your opinion isn´t supported.

Thanks for the clarification.  Finally someone is explaining this clearly.  I still maintain though that MPs are confusing the withdrawal agreement and what might be the final settlement even if the two are connected.  I think the two are often talked about as being one and the same thing.

While it's easy to be rude about them, I'm pretty confident our MPs know what they are voting for. I think of the process in 3 parts.

Part A - Transition. We remain aligned to the EU in pretty much everything for ~20 months to allow us to negotiate a free trade agreement. No dispute here other than the length. The hard right want it to be shorter, others want it to be much longer but 20mths it is

Part B - Limbo. The idea is that Part B never happens. Under pressure from the Tories, Theresa had to bring the transition to an end and we leave the single market and customs union. In a customs union we have restrictions on the trade deals we can sign and the UK can now sign trade deals now. However to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland, NI remains in the customs union, GB does not. We can only escape this by signing a free trade agreement (although what happens in NI is not clear). Under international law we cannot leave this state without EU consent. Indeed for every FTA we sign with other countries in this time the EU will then look to see how to defend its own interests (quite likely) and may place further restrictions on us making a true FTA unlikely. Comparing the UK FTA with Canada and Japan rather ignores the geographical separation. 

Part C - Free Trade Agreement. If we can negotiate this rapidly (unlikely) Part B is avoided and everyone's happy. But everyone knows this will not happen and given the influence the EU then have over the UK (in Part B) as a competitor there would be almost no incentive to offer fair terms for a FTA.

Voting for a customs union or common market 2.0 (EEA) avoids the complications of Part B which is the primary objection to TM's deal.

You are assuming their political games implies ignorance of process: it doesn't.

That isn't really supported by last night's indicative votes, neither the remain option, nor the referendum which might result in remaining, had majority support. They don't want to put their names to remaining, at least, making it irrelevant whether they'd actually like it to happen.

I was hoping they'd grudgingly compromise on an EEA-style brexit, as the actual genuine middle ground which does honour the vote to leave the EU but isn't actually catastrophic.

But I think the government will probably just ignore any such vote anyway. May can quite possibly still force her deal through, as no deal happens by default if a majority in parliament won't force something else - and it really doesn't look as if they will.

And the hardline brexiteers can probably still force a no deal exit in April or May just by blocking everything else, if parliament won't actually pass another option.

A kind view... there are others....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/brexit-westminster-is-like...

The biggest problem here seems to be that Parliament can only vote "aye" or "noe" on each specific thing.  In this situation it is necessary to choose an option; if one is not actively chosen then one is chosen by default, which is "no deal".

Really, this needs to be done on an AV type basis, or even a simple "which one gets more votes" on the basis of "you have to choose one of these".

Parliament rarely needs this kind of vote, because in most cases the status quo is not harmful.  But for cases like this it does.  Could legislation be passed to allow a different voting system for this case?

That's basically AV in a nutshell, FWIW.

Even FPTP would work fine for this - whichever one gets the most votes wins, so in this case it'd be a second referendum.  The problem is that the only option seems to be a simple "aye" or "noe" on each thing.  The paradox here is that the "status quo" is no deal, which is the least favoured option, but is going to be the choice by default if they don't support *something*.

What's actually interesting is that that (which I'd agree would be a sensible compromise) received the *least* votes - fewer than even no-deal.

Yep, I was surprised at that at first.

But I think it's really just a sign that very few MPs are actually interested in meaningful compromise and the middle ground.

Quite. I'm sure the average MP knows more about the process than the average member of the electorate. Its their fear of the consequences to them and their party that is a major factor in their voting.

Given that it is often said that the majority of MPs  think it would be best to remain, then many are  too spineless to put country and people first (some may truly believe that it is morally wrong to go against the majority in the referendum). A test of the the current wishes of the electorate seems so blindingly obvious to be the correct course of action from all aspects......it is not ignoring the result of the referendum but checking it is still valid.

Christ on a bike.  I haven't had to watch the telly through my fingers since watching Dr Who when I was six.

And have you seen the european papers?!

I'm sad, angry, ashamed, depressed, frustrated, helpless...

I don't think there is any reason (legal, procedural or otherwise) why the votes were taken in the way they were rather than the way you suggest - I think it was simply a choice to do it that way. Even if there were such reasons, standing orders could immediately be changed to allow the kind of vote you suggest.

The votes end the fairy tale that Leave do not know what they want.

Leave / Remain  MPs 159 / 400.       No deal 160 / 400.

That's quite funny. On the basis of your figures there's some poor sod who want a no-deal outcome but doesn't realise that means we have to leave!

I also know quite a few leave voters who would rather stay than take no deal and others who would prefer no deal or remain to May's deal. Parliament is as unrepresentative in the leave supporting ranks to population views on leave as it is overall to the brexit views of the voters.

That's the kind of in-depth analysis we've been lacking. Thanks.

Yes, but I think the personal opinion of the majority is to remain even if they feel they ought to vote for leave options in order to respect the views of their constituents or of the referendum. I just think that if it came down to a straight choice between remain and the nightmare of no deal, their conscience and personal views might prevail.

You know that doesn't make any sense in English or logic, right?

jk

Actually perhaps some associate citizen status conferring some rights within the EU for Remainers was proposed.  Guess What?  Some Leaver Nincompoops who wanted nothing to do with the EU complained that it would give Remainers an unfair benefit!!!!!

You could not make it up.

I understand the point he is trying to make, but it is ludicrous. It’s essentially a “true Scotsman” argument.

"The votes end the fairy tale that Leave do not know what they want.

Leave / Remain  MPs 159 / 400.       No deal 160 / 400."

So what is your interpretation of these numbers ?   How many of the 160 for " no deal"  do you think voted remain ?

Some may have done.  There are certainly Remainers who "respect" the referendum result and despite their preference being to remain believe the democratic will is to leave.

What is a "Leave" MP?

There is some data from prior to the referendum that suggests that around 160 MPs supported leave, a lot has happened since 2016, not least a General Election. Even ignoring that, you would have to be a real fool to think that the fact that that figure is the same as the number of MP who supported no deal last night, 52% of the public support no deal, despite opinion polls showing public support for no deal at 27%.

Which vote have you derived your leave/remain numbers from?

Good question. About 90 MPs abstained on that question, including all of the Cabinet, we know that no deal MPs are healthily represented in the Cabinet, so as a minimum you need to add those in. It almost suggests that something else is going on and that it would be unwise in the extreme to extrapolate this to the wider population.

I think the numbers mean you think 159 MPs are in some way 'Leave' inclined whatever that means and 400 'Remain' inclined, again whatever that means. Not sure what your source is for that, what the labels mean exactly or where the other 90 ish MPs fit in?

I presume 160/400 refers to the indicative vote for a no-deal exit on the 12th April. That means 160/400 voted for/against a that option as something among other things, or not, that they would countenance voting for or facilitating.

When people say 'leave' by which they mean leave voters and campaigners (some of whom are MPs) don't know what they voted for (most can at least give a one liner as to what they want if you don't insist on logical coherence) they mean when we voted there were a 1001 versions of brexit believed to be available, frankly there still are or at least our MPs believe there are which is the reason we're drowning in the mire you lead us into. Am I surprised most leave inclined MPs would countenance leaving without a deal... no. Does it mean they all do or even that those who voted for it think it is a good idea that will make our lives better... no. Many of those 160 will also have voted for other brexit options. I'm sure at some point today now the names are released someone will produce an interesting venn diagram.

Write in clear coherent sentences (I know, pots and kettles but at least I try) and we'd have fewer misunderstandings.

jk

We recently had a referendum to change our island's voting system from voting for politicians in your own parish to something else. You had to vote for the 5 options in order of preference. At the end of the first count unless there was a clear winner the option with the lowest number of votes was binned and the people that voted for that had their second choice votes added to the rest. This process was repeated until one option won.

youtube.com/watch?v=2SFv8gBMVSM&

This would appear to do exactly what you suggest.

In other news, maybe someone should ask May to explain how things have changed from her 2016 speech on Brexit.

I said "voted remain" and thought it was clear I was referring how MPs voted in the referendum,  Leave or Remain.

And those are the exact same MPs who supported No Deal in the indicative vote?

So you are trying to relate figures from a referendum vote almost 3 years ago which presumably refelected their own personal opinions to a vote in parliament yesterday where they have to rise above thier own personal views?

I got the no deal vote (yesterday) figures from the BBC today and the MP referendum numbers from another news item at the time of the referendum.  It was surprisingly hard to find.  I imagine the way individual MPs voted in each case is in the public domain and so it would be possible to prove that all, or almost all,  leave voters also voted for no deal. 

The numbers seem to show they are unable to do so.

I expect they pretty much are, and the information to prove that is probably available.

Why are you guessing? MP's voting records are public https://www.theyworkforyou.com/postcode/?pc=

An interesting take on Brexit from the Bundestag.

“What did David Cameron ask for that was so terrible?”

youtube.com/watch?v=63IcW4eo4uM&

Well you're the one making the claim so... 

You do know who Alice Weidel is and the political views of the party she represents?

 The Options which were given preference on Wednesday {Referendum on any deal and Customs Union} can now form part of an amendment  which  forces inclusion of Trade Directive.  This could allow the passing of Withdrawal Agreement only Motion {now set by May} with this amendment attached, with a Parliamentary majority.

Why is this such a risk?

1. The EU sets the terms and they will not allow a harder brexit than the one in the WA*.

2. The moderate Tories are relatively effective at providing opposition to the current government. One assumes they'll continue to oppose an ERG successor.

* The only exception I can imagine is a deal that takes GB out of the custom union part of the backstop and returns the backstop to the original only-for-NI backstop. But this can only happen if an ERG PM wins a majority in an election, unlikely.....

Not really going to help though, they can vote whatever they want, with any system they want, if they don’t vote for the WA, they still get no deal at some point. (Unless they revoke art 50).

Moreover, anything they end up voting for with the alernative system, would have to be translated into a bill which will have to pass with a simple majority anyway.

And in the meantime, the damaging uncertainty continues. What a bunch of absolute twats.

Not necessarily. Agreeing the WA is the only way to get the 22nd May extension but if Parliament positively votes for a viable alternative way forward then we can trigger a longer extension to facilitate.

Well, TIG apparently only voted for revocation and confirmatory referendum but if they get real under the AV votes then Clark's Customs Union option looks increasingly viable. It's still Brexit but would probably disappoint most leavers, so probably the fairest reflection of the 2016 vote on the table.

I'm not sure who you are blaming for that, but allowing Parliament two days when May has farted away nearly three years seems pretty reasonable.

Disappointing the vast majority of people (on both sides) simply to avoid finding out whether the electorate is happy with the outcome doesn't strike me as being very fair to anyone.

I 100% agree but getting a second referendum supported by Parliament looks to be a bit further off than a fudge.

I'm not confident that the moderate Tories are going to continue having much influence. I suspect after May is replaced we're going to see a general election and some moderate Tories are facing deselection by their local parties. I can't see Labour doing as well in a GE as they did last time - they've already pissed off their leave voters with their opposition but facilitating Brexit now would alienate their remain supporters as well - so I fear we'll end up with a full bore Tory majority under a hard Brexit leader. What that means for the future relationship with Europe I'm not sure, perhaps you're right and the WA ties their hands sufficiently to maintain close ties. But I'm pretty sure it would be a disaster for the country in many other ways.

This is the problem, as soon as brexit is 'delivered' (or appears to have been) and May is replaced (perhaps even just with Lidington as placeholder thereby avoiding splitting their supporters with a divisive moderate or hardline leader) the tories can safely trigger a new election. I think Labour are screwed, their failure to take and explain a bold, united and principled position along with their staggering success in pissing off both leave and remain leaning supporters alike will sadly shrink them to an irrelevance not seen in my memory. I don't think the Conservatives come out of this well either but I doubt their losses will be as severe and it is for their lunatic constituency associations a chance to purge their wet MPs, pursue the new empire nonsense they dream of. What fills the void left by the erosion of trust in the big two? Who knows! FPTP means assuming there is little cooperation between broadly compatible parties the void will be a small fraction of the voter discontent trying to fill it and we'll get the usual smattering of LibDems, nationalists and quite a few single issue independents.

I guess we get another Conservative lead coalition *if* they can establish trust with a partner or a minority, either doomed to rapid failure by extremism. Then what... It's time to emigrate, this is going to last decades

jk

Voila! https://alexandreafonso.me/2019/03/28/mapping-preferences-over-brexit-in-th...

jk

We can only hope on the rise of a pro European centrist party to mop up the disillusioned Tory and Labour remainders. In coalition with the SNP and Lib Dems we’re straight back into Europe. Hopefully with Schengen and the Euro too to piss the xenophobes off even more.

Interesting that the No-deal crash and Unicorn-deal fantasy cluster is almost completely cut off from the much larger and heavily connected soft/revoke/referendum cluster.

Suggests to me that there might be a very good reason why nobody in the crash/unicorn camp seems to be prepared to put the popularity of their option to a People's Vote.

Hi.

This is hard for me to predict. Because I thought it obvious in 2017 that it was time to vote both Corbyn and May out of power. That didn't happen....

Nevertheless, I am more positive about a next GE. I cannot imagine the British people voting again for Corbyn and the ERG in a general election.

Customs union being put in the political declaration indeed looks like it could end up being the outcome. Which unfortunately is a very bad one as it means no free movement, which, in the end, is by far the most important for individuals and the economy. 

I’d rather have EEA an no customs union, Norway basically.

The trick is, though, that no matter what  MPs decide as a “wish” for the future relationship, it will be no more than a wish, and not binding. First, parliament cannot bind itself, second, there would be no requirement for the government to implement their wish, and whatever they wish for would have to be negotiated with the EU.

So I come back to the same conclusion: the indicative votes are a total waste of time. Whatever the outcome is, it’s likely to be meaningless. If the sole purpose really is to offer labour a ladder to climb down from, and ratify the WA, then why not, but still, in itself, it’s pretty useless.

True. The dictatorial attitude of May have been disastrous. The problem is, the MPs still are going to have to vote the WA if they want a deal.

Yes, the Conservatives are revealing themselves nicely before a possible GE {de-selected Dominic Rieve today} and Theresa May has done us a favour to step aside to reveal who really twists her arm. She once called it the nasty party and i think she never "reformed" it but became a victim of it. Labour is split. I think you are right . Other parties will prevail and coalesce on a Brexit proposal. They'll take their cue for their manifestos from the indicative votes on Monday .The problem with parties which we have to vote for  is their Public Relations Image of a leader doesn't always match the real forces behind their party. We have a better idea now to judge, though Labour on this front is still opaque.

Do you know what Norway gets from its arrangement?  They pay in but have no say.  Yes, they have a seat on various EU fora, but don’t get to vote on anything.  Personally I can’t see the point.  In the committee I attended until recently, the minutes recorded the outcome as those with voting rights only.  Another one, the Norwegian rep is politely listened to, then ignored.  This is the reality of a Norway style arrangement.  It’s simply less pants that the other contenders.  The only sane position is remain.  Norway (not the country)or any other option really is a waste of time.  I don’t understand why these are repeatedly peddled as alternative options to the current offer.

Yes but the most important thing is to respect the result of the fraudulent referendum, which would have been annulled had it not been technically only advisory.

Just think, if Leave.EU and VoteLeave had played by the rules we might well have heard almost nothing about the EU (other than sensible suggestions to help reform it) for nearly three years.

Who says crime doesn't pay?

I can only see the logic of a general election first of all in order to determine  the Brexit question on a second referendum paper {other remaining in EU full membership} 

Nothing will actually pass next week. Theresa may won't budge to cross party talks. All that can be done is political parties nail their colours  to the mast {in their manifestos} for GE using the  top winner of indicative votes as their selling point. 

Leave won the referendum.  Apparently all 160 Leave MPs voted for no deal this week.  The 400 Remain MPs by definition want to remain.  Half of them still beats the Leave vote.  How can it be fair for them to decide ?

 Parliament voted to follow through with the result of the referrendum, surely if the result was indeed fraudulent couldn’t parliament simply stop the process.  The problem lots of people are saying it was fraud, but surely what’s needed is a legal ruling that the result was indeed null and void, then our elected representatives should vote to stop the whole mess.   

Can’t it be declared null and void, irrespective of whether it was advisory, surely the point is any vote should be free and fair.

Because the referendum was based on lies and fraudulent overspending.

Edit: David, your dislike suggests you don't like accepting factual statements if they're inconvenient to your desired outcome.

I believe the PM could effectively nullify it by declaring it unsafe as the basis of having submitted A50, and by that reasoning retract A50. Should could then, if she chose, organise another vote to give a non-fraudulent expression of the people's will, ideally with a more intelligent question this time based on achievable outcomes. Will she? Of course not.

Given that all of the Leave MPs voted for no deal.  It is probable that a similar vote for the voting public would produce the same result.  Most Leavers supporting no deal.  However it is probable a large proportion of the Remain voters would not support a U turn.  So no deal would be the result.

Attacking the person , or group of people, when you can't respond to the point made, seems to be normal here. This is what you are doing, since your statement  does not address my post.

On what basis, she would be open to legal challenge if she simply decided this was the case, even based on advice from the attorney general, it remains advice until tested through the courts. Given the feelings on both sides, our “dear” leader would need to be on solid ground.

Faulty logic there, especially when many in the Leave campaign, including MPs, were at great pains to say that leaving didn't mean leaving the single market.

I don't know what you mean by u-turn here.

I'm fascinated to know which person, or group of people, you think I'm "attacking", simply by pointing out a reluctance to accept facts in a discussion.

You're right in that the backing of Parliament would definitely make it a lot easier for her to do so, but then again if she were to whip her MPs to do so, in normal times, that would be a formality! However, these certainly are not normal times.

All a bit academic though really.

That can't be right, because my local MP, Pauline Latham, who is a far-right ERG Leave member, abstained on this. Remember there are 650 MPs altogether (I'm not sure how many were absent on Wednesday, but I think almost everyone was there.)

I'm happy to be corrected.   It's good to have someone engaging with the point made.

The numbers I found were :

"Leave / Remain votes in referendum 159 / 400.       No deal vote on Wednesday 160 / 400."

I didn't consider abstainers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47726787

Well yes, membership is better:

This is the reality of any form of Brexit.

Well, the Conservatives are busy pushing out people like Dominic Grieve, so I suspect they will solely represent WTO rules based Brexit. I suspect Rory Stewart will be pushed out next. They are looking for a cohesive position in the election. They'll claim duress for voting for May deal but revert to the ideal they espouse. But any one who isn't part of the look of a cohehisive approach will have to go . It is already starting. Conservative party style doesn't change much. Other parties have to take their cue from indicative votes on Monday to form their positions

It's getting to the point where I almost expect you to state that the world is flat.

When will you get it into your head that the Leave organisation has been tried, convicted and penalised (though not nearly enough in my view) for their illegal shenanigans during the referendum.

If this had been any other "election" then such election would have had BY LAW to have been re-run, with the Leave campaign barred from standing, and those involved barred from standing for ANY future office for a considerable time.

The fact that you are siding with (effectively) a bunch of crooks says far more about you than anything else I can say.

Random.

You fail to mention that the Remain campaign were also fined for their spending.

Pot, kettle, black.

It's on nothing like the same scale. We have no idea where Banks's millions even came from. The LibDems lost a few receipts.

Jk

The remain campaign spent far more than the leave campaign - if you include the governments £9 million - and why wouldn’t you? They couldn’t convince a majority of voters to keep the status quo by voting to remain but supposedly something like £650,000 swung the referendum in favour of leave.

The illegal activity on both sides was financial and while not to be condoned it wasn’t quite in the league of vote rigging, postal vote fraud, etc. which many people might think about when illegal activities and voting are mentioned. 

The focus on the financial illegalities of the leave campaign just sounds like another excuse for a referendum.

The targeted FB ads might have had something to do with it. 

Any number of wrongs don't make a right. On the Vote Leave side at least, we're talking about deliberate and significant illegal behaviour carried out with the explicit intention of perverting the outcome of the public vote. That itself, regardless of any proven or claimed irregularities on the Remain side, should rightly cause the close result of the referendum to be annulled. As it was technically only advisory, I understand that such an annulment does not follow as a legal consequence, which would require revoking A50 as that was triggered purely on the basis of the referendum outcome.

However, given the uncertainty over the legality over the mandate, for any form of Brexit now to be accepted by a very large swathe of the British public it would seem sensible that a clean confirmatory referendum is in order, to make sure the people are happy with the evolved outcome. As many others have said already, as long as this reaffirms a Brexit majority, Remainers will have little to complain about. It's pretty hard for me to envisage any rational argument to the contrary.

Or they might not.

Targeting every household in the UK didn’t do the remain campaign much good.

If you're so sure of having a majority in the country for Leave, then why not join me in demanding another Referendum ?

After all, if you're right we Remainers will have to eat humble pie.

Of course, if you and the right-wing extremists of the Tory Party are proved to be liars, then I expect you to do the same.

You keep using very emotive language such as pervert and completely ignoring  how the campaigns were funded and the vast difference between remain and leave spending.

If the leave campaign was a deliberate attempt to influence the referendum result what the heck was the governments £9 million leaflet all about?

Your argument for a second referendum is understandable given that you’ve got nothing to lose but a choice between May’s deal and remain doesn’t sound very attractive to me.

Nobody can predict the outcome of a second referendum.

However, Dominic Grieve said on This Week that nobody in the country liked Mrs May’s deal and that the referendum should be a choice between the May deal and remain.

Any wonder I don’t fancy the chances of leavers winning that referendum?

I use language which accurately describes the situation. I apologise if you find truthful language uncomfortable.

As you seemed happy to ignore when I said it just now, two wrongs don't make a right. So even though it doesn't appear to have been illegal in any way, using Cameron's ineffective circular in an attempt to draw some kind of cancelling-out of wrongdoing on both sides is not the way the law works and should not be the way that our electoral processes work.

I knew I shouldn’t have rejoined any threads featuring Brexit.

I’d almost forgotten how they always end up.

Good luck with your quest for a second referendum.

You can stuff the ways that the biased politicos want to twist things.

There are realistically only 3 possibilities that can take place (and in no particular order);

A) Leave with May's deal - the ONLY negotiated deal that the EU will accept.

B) Leave with No Deal - the legal default if all else fails.

C) Cancel Leave completely.

A simple vote with first, second and third choices marked - if any option gets >50% first time round, it wins. If this doesn't happen, then the least popular option gets its votes redistributed as per the second choices on those ballots.

Of course, as it's now fairly obvious that, for example, the NHS will NOT get 350 million pounds extra per week if we leave the EU, and instead may well find that the lower paid workers they've come to rely on are themselves leaving then maybe, just maybe, the number of people conned and lied to that voted Leave on such basis may well vote the other way.

I'm pretty sure that that's the reason a second referendum is being fought against with such vitriol.

I voted to leave the EU.

None of your proposed options suits me.

So I give you a fourth - leave the EU with a better deal than Mrs May managed.

That shouldn’t be too difficult given how poor the May deal is and the fact that Mrs May’s deal isn’t actually a deal but merely a withdrawal agreement. Given the UK’s poor performance in negotiations so far the political declaration, the bit most MPs are arguing about, won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

how about:

Everyone has 2 votes of equal weight.

Use either one or two votes (ie A+C, C, A+B, A, B,B+C )  (so pple could vote for leave at all costs, only leave softly, ruleout a futile brexit etc)

Whichever gets most wins....

(advantage: no tempation to 'game' about first choice;   disadvantage: a bit alien...)

"suits me" just about sums it up.

Goodnight. This whole thing now makes me feel quite sick.

Does this mean we're officially ****ed then? 

I do wonder why anybody thinks a 2nd referendum with this choice would actually settle the matter.

Who is actually going to campaign for May's deal? Does anybody think genuine leavers are going to campaign for something they have almost all voted against or only done so at the 2nd or 3rd attempt whilst holding their noses.

They will boycott the referendum and campaign for leavers to do so thus turning it into a meaningless farce and then ignore the result and carrying on campaigning to leave, just like the militant remainers have ignored the result of the last referendum.

The Brexit cat is out of the bag and it isn't going to be put back in by another referendum that only the losers of the last one want and which excludes the outcome that leavers want.

We have to thank the 33 people vote idiots MPs who abstained on Common market 2.0.

‘Suits me’ reflects my opinion. I don’t actually think that the entire UK should do something just because it’s what I want. Maybe you should direct your anger (or whatever emotion is most appropriate) at those MPs who can’t manage to compromise and assemble any deal that can gain a majority. Even though the majority of those MPs are remainers and should have something in common.

While I share your view I can see the situation where MPs combine to put a customs union deal with a referendum deal in order to gain a majority.

Anna Soubury seems to think this is a plan.

It would certainly fit in with those MPs who seek to stop Brexit.

So what happened to the alternative voting system???

I suspect a second referendum would achieve the highest turnout in history.

If everyone is so sure that the people know what they want, and are in favour of leaving, why are they so afraid to ask the people to decide...?

For the reasons already given and because you won’t give us a straight leave remain choice?

Dunno, but I’m officially well f*cked off.

we’ve already had that! Do you seriously think asking that question again will solve anything, have you learnt nothing in the last 3 years?

Leave doesn’t mean leave Brexit doesn’t mean Brexit, they both mean a vast range of things. It was never a binary choice and it never will be.

You are entirely missing my point. The outcome that most leavers want wouldn't even be on the ballot paper, why would anyone campaign for something they didn't want and why would people vote for something they didn't want?

A boycott is a very real possibility

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-nig...

That's all very possible but so is a boycott of such a referendum which would make it a meaningless farce.

So your choice of question for the referendum is?

Ha ha ha, Farage will boycott a second referendum, that is irony wrapped in hubris served with a side of stupidity.

So the outcome that most leavers want would not be on the ballot paper - what is that exactly. Serious question.

3 way; May’s deal or no deal or revoke article 50. AV to reach a decision.

Mays deal is actually what you get when you cook the fantasy, bullshit and lies into a practical solution.

May’s deal is what you get when you’ve been completely outfoxed by the other side.

Which other side are you talking about?

The EU.

Who managed to set the agenda and timetable for the withdrawal negotiations despite the UK sending it’s crack negotiating team.

Now you’re just being sarcastic 😊

I don't have the power to decide what is on the ballot paper...

But we're a couple of days past the original deadline, but we still don't have any idea what 'leave' actually means. So how can we have a simple 'leave' option on the ballot paper? Unless it's 'no deal' leave? I'd be happy with a remain/no deal choice.

Farage wants to boycott a second referendum?

Do I need to point you to his suggestion that a close referendum result really ought to be followed by a second referendum? You know, from when he thought leave would lose...?

Or the suggestion from Rees-Mogg that it might be sensible to have a second referendum once the details of the deal were decided...?

Sarcastic?

Me?

Surely not?  

As a leave voter I am well aware that we are past the original deadline.

Something that our politicians seem to think is OK.

There has been such a misrepresentation of what MPs are actually voting on at the moment.

They’re arguing about a non binding political declaration when the EU wants them to agree on the legally binding withdrawal agreement.

No wonder they can’t work out what leave means.

Maybe the second referendum shouldn’t be about leave or remain but it should ask the leavers to decide what sort of brexit they want?

...maybe you can explain what leave means?

Wasnt the first referendum a farce ?

Didn’t we have this discussion before, during and after the referendum?

We certainly did on this forum, maybe there was some debate across the UK as well.

You are dodging the question. One of the reasons for the current mess is disagreement in the nation, parliament and cabinet over what “leave” means. So tell us now. WHAT MEANING OF LEAVE SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT PAPER?

There’s certainly disagreement over leave amongst those who want to remain - i.e. most MPs.

But since you asked, I’d settle for something like this -

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/information-about-the-uk-leaving-the-eu

Nope! Much of that link is about answering questions after leaving. The problem is that leavers all read their favoured but differing answer to those questions into their voting decisions, including Irish border etc, hence the current crisis. So please try again Baron. What version of leave would you put on the ballot paper?

Leave with a deal but not the May deal.

There’s a difference between  sending out a leaflet that opponents can read and counter, and sending out messages that nobody but the recipient sees and therefore the opposition can’t counter. 

And of course, ALL those versions of leave collated votes in the referendum. It was like asking people if they wanted fish and chips or “something else”

Or when you’re in a very weak negotiating position, a weakness evident right from the start. 

Great thanks. So should the deal have harmonisation of customs duties across the Irish border or allow us to have different customs duties and hence need for border checks? (The idea of technology to avoid this paradox has been ruled out)

There is indeed.

Maybe the remain campaigns major problem wasn’t the illegal use of funds by part of the leave campaign but remain’s use of ineffective techniques.

I think they’re illegal for the reasons I stated above, but I could be wrong. 

I’d rather not have a customs union but if as some suggest the people of Ireland are unable to deal with a hard border and will immediately resort to terrorism then I suppose a customs union would be preferable.

I think that’s a good answer and I’m surprised the DUP didn’t vote for it (they abstained) . Unfortunately the ERG display wilful ignorance to this problem , that’s why political self interest defeated common sense last night

I don’t condone any illegal activity associated with the referendum.

However, I don’t think that any activity of the leave campaigns had any major effect on the outcome.

I’d hazard a guess that most leavers had made their minds up the moment that the referendum was announced and leave could have saved their money.

Gosh only knows what the remain campaign were up to when the odds should have been stacked in their favour.

The fact that there’s been little change in the percentage of people who’d still vote to leave despite all that’s happened simply reinforces my belief.

I think the Speaker should have played this before the debate

youtube.com/watch?v=oqMl5CRoFdk&

I think the DUP’s problem is with the backstop which they’ll never agree to even though a customs union would work for them.

I was disappointed that the Withdrawal Agreement only vote didn’t pass and I was angry that many MPs spoke about a ‘blind Brexit’ which ignored the fact that any ‘deal’ is blind given that the political declaration part is non binding.

I have no idea what the ERG are playing at.

Indeed    

It wouldn't have matter that much. Parliament does not need a majority, it needs a majority larger than the cabinet to force May's hand. The choice is still her's.

I guess the EU will refuse any further extension now.

Three options:

a. May caves, whips for a customs union and the WA passes with Labour votes

or May goes this deal or no deal with

b. Corbyn caves and votes the deal through

c. Corbyn does not cave and there will be no deal.

No deal obviously means that parliament will vote for something identical to the deal in a few weeks time anyway.

The honorable choice would be a. So my money is on b.

Doesn't really matter what anybody said in the past, 550 MPs voted for a referendum and said they would respect the result. They voted to trigger article 50 and enshrine leaving without a deal as the legal default.

This is now a bare knuckle fight to the death, you can howl all you like about Farage, be my guest, but if leading brexiteers boycott the election plenty of the electorate will follow and the result will become meaningless and whether you or I like that isn't the point.

In reply to pasbury:

See my reply above.

I've long since stopped arguing about the rights and wrongs of Brexit on UKC, its completely pointless. Whatever the outcome most leavers want and whether it ends up on the ballot paper is not for me to decide. I'm simply pointing out that if people think a second referendum will resolve the issue they are dreaming.

The idea that people who've been campaigning to leave the EU for 30 years, campaigned for a referendum, won the referendum and got within a week of leaving will all just go "ok never mind, we gave it a good shot" is for the birds when that referendum is only wanted by the losers, leaves eveything the losers want on the table and only gives the winners a sh*t deal they hate.

Whatever you or I think about that is irrelevant, it's what will happen.

They'd have got away with it too, were it not for the pesky law.

The 'shit' deal is the inevitable and predictable (remember Barnier's ladder chart from the very beginning of the process) consequence of May's stupid red lines; they are an embodiment of what it is assumed that leave voters wanted 'on average'.

Leave voters voted for a shit deal for the UK in the future, they just didn't realise it.

I don't think the government's public information leaflet can be considered targeted, it is the very definition of untargeted broadcast information. The point about targeted ads is the use of personal data to craft an argument to suit the individual, to prey on their personal fears, to appeal to their hopes and interests. It's effective but it crates this mess where everyone has contradictory expectations, some were offered a socialist utopia, some a libertarian one, some that we'd be cracking down on immigrants, others that their families would be welcomed by new more open immigration policies... they illegally misused personal data and they've sowed the seeds of discontent. Nobody is getting what they were offered except a few who consolidate power and hope to be at the front of the mob when the looting of our state assets and public services begins.

jk

I'm sure many didn't realise the implications, quite a lot of people, it seems, simply didn't care, so driven were they by irrational nationalism.  Maybe it will be shit, but it will be our shit.

What happens now?  I'm slightly baffled by the general view of the pundits that the chaos in Parliament is bad news for the hardline Brexiteers, who by refusing to compromise have fumbled the ball just short of the line and ensured a soft Brexit.

I don't see it that way at all and Steve Baker doesn't either. He sees that all they have to do is block everything and let April 12th arrive without any progress.  They win by default.  He's been saying so for months actually.  But the irony of demanding the right to take back control so that our political system can behave as it likes without any steadying influence from Europe can't be lost, even on him.

Anyway, I think I really am past caring.  I think we'll leave without a deal and part of me will just be relieved that it's over.  It's probably for the best, at least for Europe.  I'll support and encourage our kids to get as well qualified as they can and then to emigrate.

This is the problem, the unicorns will not lie down and die. Until the last of them is slain we're stuck in this interminable loop blundering toward the cliff edge.

There isn't one. We do not hold all the cards. This isn't the easiest deal in history. We're over a barrel in absolutely no position to make demands.

May's deal was never going to be good, we already have a better deal than other EU members and we have no leverage to improve it. Problem is May's deal isn't just not good, it's shit because she prioritised immigration control (which won't be of use anyway since the economy controls immigration) over all else. You want a better deal you need to drop immigration control but you want immigration control IIRC so what does a better deal actually look like... unrealistic once the EU's position is considered.

LOL. Sorry, you really can't have been paying attention. Nice to see you back though.

jk

Conservative MPs were yesterday, just yesterday with 9 days left on the clock, 3 years squandered offered a workshop on 'What is a customs union?'. This presumably in the hope of convincing a few of the dafter ones to vote against it. We truly are being lead by donkeys!

jk

Is this news? Name a search engine , free email provider, social platform that isn't mining your personal data and using it to place relevant ads and send you junk emails? 

It's a bit like those senators who could not grasp Facebook makes money from advertising. Your search history is far more valuable than a list of email addresses off Aaron banks. 

It is easy of course to do stereotype mail shots..  I'll look for a male, who recently searched for white van spare parts, bought an England top on eBay and just insured his pet pit bull.  But, that would potentially be preaching to the converted and a waste of resources. 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/26b2mrd7yn/P...

Pg1 significant public support for a public vote 53/47

Pg4 strong public support for remain 56/44

jk

It’s good to be back but I think it’s only a fleeting visit to the Brexit threads, there’s still too little common ground and people’s opinions only seem to have hardened  as this ridiculous process has ground on and on.

I can’t see it getting any better whatever happens  in the next few weeks.

Probably better to stick to less political and more climbing related threads.  

The best we can hope for a referendum to do is get the argument out of parliament for a few years by voting remain. If we're sensible we use those few years to address the sores of austerity, to start fixing our utterly fu*ked up country. Next best we ratify a withdrawal agreement and in 10-15years we're back in a reasonably stable relationship with our neighbours and we've put this mess largely behind us. I don't actually believe that, I believe we've started an irreversible process of balkanising the UK, infecting the whole with ideological conflict like that which has wracked NI for nearly a century, which may with more care and hard work be healed within the next. Realistically I see no future here for me anymore either way.

The thing is there are no good options. A ratification referendum offering a choice between defined and deliverable futures is the least bad, it is the one that offers the most hope of healing some of these divides, of moving forward deliberately with an intact economy and democracy. Still, it will take some great leadership to see us through these hard coming years.

jk

In that case would you care to volunteer your services to Theresa, I'm sure she'd welcome your magic wand.

OK Mystic Meg - what DO they want ?

A negotiation means two sides sit down and try to find a middle way that is the least bad deal that they can each live with.

It is NOT where one side dictates completely to the other.

(And if you honestly thought that little old GB&NI could dictate to the rest of Europe then you've got an overly grandiose view of our standing and clout in this world.)

My feelings exactly.

Ironic that DUP are so set on preserving the Union when they are hastening its dissolution through Scottish independence 

The DUP are one group of people who I can categorically say don't understand the concept of irony.

General election prediction. Labour with most. Lib, TIG, SNP equal numbers so any of these in coalition with Lab to form working governement. More Greens , DUP , Welsh Mps and what's left of the Conservatives- Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsome, a necessary and much loved part of Parliament as they function like the uncool car on the Top Gear Road Trips as a constant reminder to the rest to persist in co-operation or revert to a car-wreck economy.

Most likely we're not getting an election this side of leaving the EU. May's choice is to split her beloved Conservative party on the 12th or let it fight for its life in the aftermath. There is no choice, party first. We leave on the 12th with May blaming Brussels for imposing unacceptable terms in exchange for further extension.

After that in short order we get a hardline quitter appointed to the top of the Conservatives, a slew of resignations from both the front bench and the party then a new election mid-summer when they can't pass the emergency legislation required to manage the chaos. Who or what we elect then...

jk