Irish Praetorian wrote: » I'm sorry but what is that based on exactly? I've been following the tracking polls for various post Brexit referenda and the point you make might have been true for the first year or so. However, since then the numbers of people who think A: the vote to leave the EU was the wrong decision and B: who would vote to remain in a hypothetical second referendum, have only been increasing. Ideally, such a referendum might take the form of an alternative vote; Remain, May's Deal, No Deal - eliminate the option with the lowest support and transfer its votes to the other two. Frankly, I think at this point if the country voted No-Deal it would be a lot more palatable and most of the complaints from the earlier referendum would be null and void. It might still be a silly idea, but it would at least be an endorsed silly idea.
looksee wrote: » This whole thing is a no-win for all concerned. If it goes out 'no deal' we are all in trouble. If somehow there is a vote to stay it will cause social unrest as there is such an irrationally strong desire for Brexit, and a great deal of damage is already done. Any faction getting into government that will go with remain will be blamed for all the mess that has already happened. If it is 'leave' any government in charge will be blamed for the problems. Even if it is leave with some sort of a deal the economy is already damaged and will not be improved even by a deal. Whatever happens it is going to be a mess and its hard to imagine who would want to be in charge to take all the flak. I personally think that, unfortunately, they have to leave somehow, just to get it out of their systems.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » Would that not just end up enraging the part of the country that (rightly or wrongly, and to be fair probably wrongly) sees No-Deal as what they want? I mean don't get me wrong they would want to qualify 'No Deal' as something more substantial than just a name, maybe no agreements with the EU for 10 years or something, but I'm not sure there can be much progress without that option at least on the table.
Irish Praetorian wrote: » firemansam4 wrote: » I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess. In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before. I'm sorry but what is that based on exactly? I've been following the tracking polls for various post Brexit referenda and the point you make might have been true for the first year or so. However, since then the numbers of people who think A: the vote to leave the EU was the wrong decision and B: who would vote to remain in a hypothetical second referendum, have only been increasing.
firemansam4 wrote: » I've said this before on this thread, but there is a lot of miss placed optomism that if another referendum was held it would solve this whole Brexit mess. In my opinion it would probably return a higher leave majority than before.
CelticRambler wrote: » I think firemansam4's warning about misplaced optimism is valid. While there are many polls that suggest that if the same referendum were to be run again, the results would favour Remain, the conditions have changed completely. Now it's not just an electorate getting high on the chance of casting protest vote, but a deeply fragmented society being subject to more and more indoctrination every week. You've got "Brexit fatique" sufferers, you've got the "undemocratic backstop" people, you've got "oh, let's just get it over with" folks, you've got the Blitz spirit/stick-it-to-the-Germans crowd, you've got the Remainers who have decided to vote Leave because they've been persuaded that the EU is trapping the UK, you've got the Scots, you've got the DUP, you've got the Lib Dems ... All-in-all, you've got one hell of a mess and that's before you even get around to figuring out how many questions to put on a referendum ballot.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » I think it is a fair position for them to say theyre against Brexit therefore vote against ang kind of Brexit. Theyve been consistent on this and they are a small party so their MP votes dont make too mu h of a difference. However, the whole Uk political esrablishment can be blamed for playing party politics at a time when some kind of national consensus should be sought. If only there was some way that they could politicially get together and try to agree a position that works for most of them
Sam Russell wrote: » The best result would be to Revoke Art 50 and rerun the referendum in 12 months time when they can put a clear choice to the electorate. Now that is not going to happen for obvious reasons - there is no majority for it.
CelticRambler wrote: » I was thinking about this, trying to see things from an EU point of view and wondering how anyone's going to be able to convince Macron that an extension would achieve anything when the polls and public pronouncements by all parties essentially confirm the current stalemate I wonder if there's a possibility that the Political Declaration could include a provision that if, within the transition period, there is a measurable shift in public opinion within the UK (to be demonstrated either by a referendum or an election) they could be re-admitted to the EU under the same T&Cs as at present. That would allow Johnson & Co. to declare that Britain had left the EU; it would take the fence out from under Corbyn; it might reassure the Lib Dems that the fight was not lost; it would effectively make the NI backstop the starting point for the future FTA. We wouldn't have to listen anymore to Brexiters talking about the EU blinking at the last minute, and Farage & Co. would yield their seats to the zombie MEPs.
Sam Russell wrote: » I like that idea if it was a legal possibility for the EU to offer it.
Robert McGrath wrote: » Dangerous precedent for the future, though, and could undermine the cohesion of the EU. ... It’s potentially providing a risk-free bet for those promoting an Italexit or a Frexit
FrancieBrady wrote: » That would be a ridiculous situation imo. A test drive with no commitments?
CelticRambler wrote: » Well, not really: the EU would simply point to the "unique circustances on the Island of Ireland" and reject any idea of precedent.
Robert McGrath wrote: » It shows what insane times we live in that the prospect of including “No Deal” as an option in a referendum is even being discussed as a possibility. As David McWilliams is fond of saying, “no deal” actually means “no deal for now”. Even those advocating the no deal option see it as a bargaining chip for getting a better deal (whether that deal is negotiated before or after leaving). We have seen in this country with the 8th Amendment how referendums can tie the hands of a government’s ability to legislate in unintended ways and therefore they should be treated carefully. What is being proposed with a “No Deal” option in a referendum is even worse - it’s proposing that the electorate micromanage the trade agreement negotiation tactics. This is crazy. Unless the proposal is that no free trade agreement or other agreement is entered into for a certain period of time, as another poster suggested. Which is even more insane. Voting to the the North Korea of Europe
CelticRambler wrote: I wonder if there's a possibility that the Political Declaration could include a provision that if, within the transition period, there is a measurable shift in public opinion within the UK (to be demonstrated either by a referendum or an election) they could be re-admitted to the EU under the same T&Cs as at present.
CelticRambler wrote: » I wonder if there's a possibility that the Political Declaration could include a provision that if, within the transition period, there is a measurable shift in public opinion within the UK (to be demonstrated either by a referendum or an election) they could be re-admitted to the EU under the same T&Cs as at present.
50.5 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Westernyelp wrote: » Why should we bend over backwards to facilitate their self inflicted mess being sorted out? While they continue to come up with zero solutions. Non runner IMO.
Joe_ Public wrote: » If, as has been said, the left-right paradigm in uk politics has been changed by remain-leave, that they have become the polar extremes, then it's surely possible to argue that Labour's position is the true centre one, the position of compromise. This kind of triangulation, seeking the "third way", is just what blairism was built on back in the day, yet it is getting nothing but scorn from many on both sides.
PropJoe10 wrote: » It'll be interesting to see what kind of traction the Lib Dems gain with this "Cancel Brexit" policy in the next election, whenever it comes around. They're really putting themselves up as a target but at least they seem to have a concrete message which is more than can be said for Labour.
reslfj wrote: » The article 50.5 states very clearly The transition periods are designed to uphold current trade rules (CU+SM+ FTAs ????) and other EU rules, while the UK can negotiate replacement trade deals with the EU27 (the PD into treaty text) and with other countries. This can not be done while being an EU member state. Brexit must have happened - and then A49 will apply as explicitly written in A50. This means QMV is replaced by unanimity = veto right for all EU27 states, and surely all special UK T&Cs will not be accepted by all EU27 members going forward.The rebate - possible after a short phase out period. Likely some opt-outs will get an 'until clause' too But Schengen membership may not be required if Ireland will accept continued use of the CTA (putting the CTA into law/ UK-RoI treaty may be required) The Euro rules require the UK to be within the debt/deficit limits (60%, max 3%). This cannot happen anytime soon. There is already a large 'repair job' for the UK economy even after an A50 revoke, and a much larger one after a 'No Deal' or indeed after any Brexit day. With the current Trump/Boris/Putin induced instability into NATO and the EU, I can easily imagine the UK will have to accept joining an additional European military command structure (EU+some non EU countries). This will also allow some of the EU member states not in NATO e.g FI, SE, IE to participate more openly in European defence. Lars PS! Re. rejoin and A49 - Don't underestimate the EU's ability to find an easier solution if all 27 agree and they really want a fast path back to membership for the UK. But the UK can do nothing but hope and pray.
MrMusician18 wrote: » If the UK gets readmitted it won't get the rebate back, it might be able to win a derogation on the Euro (although it adopting the Euro would be a way of firmly stopping this crisis from happening again) and would almost certainly be allowed to opt out of Schengen as it is really of little benefit for an island state.
CelticRambler wrote: » The concept is fine, but it is very hard for an Old Establishment party to reinvent/reposition itself in that way. Blairism only worked because GB was still effectively working under the two-party system. With the rise of the SNP and the Lib Dems, and grumbling ulcer of the Brexit Party niggling away, the UK really needs a totally new movement (à la Macron) Alas, very recent history has shown that neither the politicians nor the electorate are prepared to consider thinking outside of a them-n-us box.
