Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think that this is a seminal post from you, Den. Everyone seems to be criticising Theresa May but totally ignoring the almost impossible task she faces. She does not have a majority in Parliament, all other factions (the remainers, the Labour Party, the ERG...) keep laying man traps to disrupt what she is trying to achieve, and of course the EU itself.

The referendum result was to leave. It was Theresa May who put forward the idea of a withdrawal agreement as a bridge between where we are now and where we want to be. Unfortunately, certain factions have used this against her and have deliberately muddied the waters. Had she not suggested the withdrawal agreement, I am sure the process of leaving the EU without such an agreement would have just gone through!

The Brexit people voted for, when you look at it, was a hard Brexit. Theresa was the woman with a plan. That is now being used against her.

There is absolutely no-one else with the balls to see this through, as you have acknowledged, Den. Credit where credit is due, don't you think?

Her choice - she had a majority, called a snap election and her stated reason was to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations

Her call - the blame for all this is on her.

[richard s]

If the MP's cannot decide than give the people another referendum and let us the people decide.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by richard s

If the MP's cannot decide than give the people another referendum and let us the people decide.

That's totally sensible and democratic but according to some views it's anti democratic

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by richard s

If the MP's cannot decide than give the people another referendum and let us the people decide.

Letting the people decide is what got us in this mess in the first place, who'd trust them again. I propose a legally binding best of three competition of rock, paper, scissors to break the deadlock

Originally Posted by Hugh

Her choice - she had a majority, called a snap election and her stated reason was to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations

Her call - the blame for all this is on her.

Here in Scotland the result wasn’t all that bad. We got rid of both Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond. Not bad for one night’s work.

The national outcome is difficult, granted, but at the same time the parliamentary maths may have contributed to a harder Brexit deal than if she had been able to guarantee waving whatever she brought back from Brussels through on a massive majority. So I’m happy about that, and to be frank I’ll be even happier if the parliamentary arithmetic leads to us leaving without any deal at all.

I believe the short term upheaval will finally concentrate minds in the Treasury, and in the European Commission, and negotiating a final relationship with the EU under such circumstances would be better for us than with the threat of the Backstop hanging over us. If London starts looking like Singapore-on-Thames for even five minutes, certain Eurozone economies will start quaking in their boots, and Varadkar will finally start to understand that pizzing off your closest neighbour, whom you rely on for masses of trade and through-transport to most of the rest of your markets, is generally a very bad idea.

---------- Post added at 23:51 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------

Oh and just so this stays on topic ... no, she mustn’t. That would be extraordinarily silly this close to 29 March.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think that this is a seminal post from you, Den. Everyone seems to be criticising Theresa May but totally ignoring the almost impossible task she faces. She does not have a majority in Parliament, all other factions (the remainers, the Labour Party, the ERG...) keep laying man traps to disrupt what she is trying to achieve, and of course the EU itself.

And there is only one person you can blame for that don't you agree?

---------- Post added at 05:56 ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think that this is a seminal post from you, Den. Everyone seems to be criticising Theresa May but totally ignoring the almost impossible task she faces. She does not have a majority in Parliament, all other factions (the remainers, the Labour Party, the ERG...) keep laying man traps to disrupt what she is trying to achieve, and of course the EU itself.

If she had a decent enough majority that would not be as much as a problem and as for the ERG well if you don't deal with *******s as John Major called them those *******s will inevitably bring you down.

---------- Post added at 06:01 ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The referendum result was to leave. It was Theresa May who put forward the idea of a withdrawal agreement as a bridge between where we are now and where we want to be. Unfortunately, certain factions have used this against her and have deliberately muddied the waters. Had she not suggested the withdrawal agreement, I am sure the process of leaving the EU without such an agreement would have just gone through!

l have never once moaned about the referendum result but that was never a problem for me but the problem has been the complete omnishambles since that night and anybody who does not think that is obviously living in cloud cuckoo land.

---------- Post added at 06:03 ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The Brexit people voted for, when you look at it, was a hard Brexit. Theresa was the woman with a plan. That is now being used against her.

Theresa May could not organise a piss up in a brewery that much is the case thus shown so far.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Letting the people decide is what got us in this mess in the first place, who'd trust them again. I propose a legally binding best of three competition of rock, paper, scissors to break the deadlock

You could say this is the third option.
1st in 1973
2nd 2016
3rd 2019

Unless May resigns I cannot see her being replaced by any of the current crowd as none want the poisoned chalice of Brexit. Although Gove does seem to be playing things close to his chest, he is one to watch if she does resign.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by daveeb

That's totally sensible and democratic but according to some views it's anti democratic

I’m not confused. I completely understand the democratic aspect of holding another referendum because of turbulence in Parliament.

On the other hand, it is equally democratic to implement the 2016 Referendum result, which was Leave.

One could argue that is is more democratic to implement the 2016 public decision because why should a 2nd referendum be more valid than the first? I know the argument - people know more now than they did in 2016; but that is a Remainer’s argument and they lost the first referendum so they would, wouldn’t they.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I’m not confused. I completely understand the democratic aspect of holding another referendum because of turbulence in Parliament.

On the other hand, it is equally democratic to implement the 2016 Referendum result, which was Leave.

One could argue that is is more democratic to implement the 2016 public decision because why should a 2nd referendum be more valid than the first? I know the argument - people know more now than they did in 2016; but that is a Remainer’s argument and they lost the first referendum so they would, wouldn’t they.

But surely if the case for Leave was that strong, it would be a walkover?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But surely if the case for Leave was that strong, it would be a walkover?

Especially as people know more now

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But surely if the case for Leave was that strong, it would be a walkover?

That is the sort of Remainer’s rhetoric that I’m criticising in the context of a 2nd referendum.

Originally Posted by Hugh

But surely if the case for Leave was that strong, it would be a walkover?

... which has all the intellectual integrity of yelling “what’s the matter? Chicken?” in someone’s face.

We had a democratic vote, which all sides went into understanding that the government had pledged to implement the outcome. We then had a general election, in which both main parties pledged in their manifestos to implement the outcome.

At some point, it starts to be *un*democratic to keep going back to the country over the same question, because it looks very much like an attempt to over-ride multiple choices for one outcome with a single result for the other. And seeing as our system of government relies on legitimate elections whose outcomes are mutually respected by winners and losers alike, the supposed short-term gain of settling the Brexit question risks long-term damage to our democratic process

As it happens, I don’t believe that any outcome of any second referendum would settle the issue anyway, and even if it did settle it (for now), all that would be achieved would be a dangerous precedent encouraging the government to manipulate the political situation after a referendum so as to make the consequences look unpalatable and give them a chance to reverse an inconvenient result.

There are plenty who think (and I am one of them) that the EU has had every incentive to make Brexit look impossibly hard because it is so accustomed to member states re-running referendums when they deliver the “wrong” result, that it has found it nigh on impossible not to proceed on the assumption that the same thing would happen here.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

I have merged “Teresa May must resign” into the main Brexit thread, because there’s no way it was ever going to remain a distinctive topic of its own.

[Carth]

If . . and it's probably a laughable if . . it was decided to hold a second referendum, could someone place a rough timing on how long before we'd get to vote in it?

Would the Government in all honesty dare to run another referendum with different options, and not the simple 'Stay or Leave' like the first one? Putting Mays deal as an option would surely alienate a vast majority of public & Parliament I think.

After two years of going nowhere, would anything change if the result was Leave again?

There isn't going to be another referendum I don't think. There isn't a strong enough mandate evident in the electorate for one that makes it a compelling enough case for either of the main parties to back it. There is rather consistent polling that shows Remain has moved ahead but when these polls are examined its mostly voter churn, i.e more young people entering the electorate and those getting older still not changing their minds.

I think for those people efforts are better spent concentrating on what the next goals are. We have General Elections, maybe one this year, to change the country and there is nothing stopping the next Government from prioritising deals with Europe, our migration policy, workers rights or whatever else there is.

Originally Posted by Hugh

But surely if the case for Leave was that strong, it would be a walkover?

... which has all the intellectual integrity of yelling “what’s the matter? Chicken?” in someone’s face.

We had a democratic vote, which all sides went into understanding that the government had pledged to implement the outcome. We then had a general election, in which both main parties pledged in their manifestos to implement the outcome.

At some point, it starts to be *un*democratic to keep going back to the country over the same question, because it looks very much like an attempt to over-ride multiple choices for one outcome with a single result for the other. And seeing as our system of government relies on legitimate elections whose outcomes are mutually respected by winners and losers alike, the supposed short-term gain of settling the Brexit question risks long-term damage to our democratic process

As it happens, I don’t believe that any outcome of any second referendum would settle the issue anyway, and even if it did settle it (for now), all that would be achieved would be a dangerous precedent encouraging the government to manipulate the political situation after a referendum so as to make the consequences look unpalatable and give them a chance to reverse an inconvenient result.

There are plenty who think (and I am one of them) that the EU has had every incentive to make Brexit look impossibly hard because it is so accustomed to member states re-running referendums when they deliver the “wrong” result, that it has found it nigh on impossible not to proceed on the assumption that the same thing would happen here.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

I have merged “Teresa May must resign” into the main Brexit thread, because there’s no way it was ever going to remain a distinctive topic of its own.

Not really...

It has all the intellectual rigour of two and a half years of being further informed of the complexities and potential outcomes of a decision, rather than just ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

btw, re the "What’s the matter - chicken?" analogy, isn’t it the Leavers who are saying it’s OK to jump without knowing the outcome or potential issues?