[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Are they? I would choose no deal over May’s plan

I am sorry to disappoint but how you may choose is not a representative sample.

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Well well well....A debriefing document prepared by the Greater London Authority put the number of attendees at October's People’s Vote rally at 250,000 - significantly below the campaign group's claim that they were joined by more than 700,000 people.

Do you have a link for this?

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

People's opinions have changed. That's why 'leave' are petrified of another vote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...t-peoples-vote

A new poll:

If Corbyn backs Brexit, he faces electoral catastrophe

is also important in a number of ways. Firstly it has a large sample size and secondly the results are well beyond sampling errors.

It clearly show that Corbyn's pathetic attempt to get Labour over the Brexit line in the face of overwhelming internal opposition will lead to his and Labour's electoral demise.

It also shows that people have changed their positions since 2016:

YouGov questioned more than 25,000 people between 21 December and last Friday. It tested two referendum scenarios. If the choice is Remain versus the government’s withdrawal agreement, Remain leads by 26 points: 63% to 37%. If the choice is Remain versus leaving the EU without a deal, Remain wins by 16 points: 58% to 42%.

This section perfectly sums up where we are today:

The larger point is that the nature of the choice has changed since 2016 – 52% voted Leave when it was a general aspiration with little apparent downside. Today support for Brexit is significantly lower when Leave is more clearly defined.

This pattern is familiar to referendums in different countries: many people support the broad idea of change, but back away when the details are laid out. They want “change”, but not “this change”.

That is clearly the case today: 80% of people who voted Leave two years ago still say they want Brexit to go ahead; but the figure falls to 69% if the choice is a “no deal” Brexit, and only 55% if the referendum offers the withdrawal agreement. The rest say they don’t know, or switch to Remain. (The respective loyalty rates on the other side – Remain voters in 2016 who would stick with Remain today – are significantly higher.)

In short, the electorate is increasingly polarised between a growing majority that wants the UK to stay in the EU and a much smaller, but still significant, segment of the electorate that wants a hard, “no deal” Brexit. There is little public appetite for compromise between these two positions.

I have highlighted the important point. This is the reality today in 2019. Yes, you can huff & puff and say "I know what I voted for" and "you are all traitors, democracy is betrayed", etc. but we are where we are today. The 'Will of the People" is that there is no mandate for a No Deal.

As for Corbyn, this:

This polarisation poses acute problems for Jeremy Corbyn as well as Theresa May. The Labour leader fears that if his party backs a public vote and then campaigns for a Remain victory he will alienate Leave voters in Labour’s heartlands.

YouGov’s figures suggest that, far from boosting Labour’s support, Corbyn’s approach could lead to electoral catastrophe.

The conventional voting intention question produces a six-point Conservative lead (40% to 34%). This is bad enough for an opposition that ought to be reaping electoral dividends at a time when the government is in crisis.

However, when voters are asked how they would vote if Labour failed to resist Brexit, the Conservatives open up a 17-point lead (43% to 26%). That would be an even worse result than in Margaret Thatcher’s landslide victory in 1983, when Labour slumped to 209 seats, its worst result since the 1930s.

The key reason for this is that, if Labour is seen to facilitate Brexit in any form, YouGov’s results indicate that the party would be deserted by millions of Remain voters – without gaining any extra support from Leave voters.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't think you're right §20 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 sets the Exit Day as 23:00 on 29-Mar-19. It also allows a "Minister of the Crown" to amend that date with some convoluted wording that amounts to an extension of the A50 period.

The Act makes no provision for not leaving the EU; this would require separate primary legislation which cannot be introduced except by Government. (A private member's bill will have serious difficulty finding time).

I read today that some treacherous MPs are planning to have the Finance Bill voted down, thus potentially closing government spending down, unless the government agrees to guarantee that No Deal will not be allowed. Now there's anti-democracy hard at work, thwarting an instruction from the public in the Referendum.

Of course some Remainers will define that treachery as a pure act of democracy and that is what the argument in this thread is all about.

You are basing your definition of treachery on your subjective view. No problem here but the MP's have to have a more open and objective mind. Many believe, correct in my view, that the country has arrived at a position where it could result in serious self harm if it proceeds in No Deal direction assuming May's deal is voted down.

You may wish to risk this potential harm on the country but Parliament is not as gung ho as you. They need to consider the jobs & prosperity of the country and many, if not the majority, conclude that a No Deal is not in the best interests of the country.

This is their job after all ...