What did we do?

What did we do?

Brexiters don't want it because they know they'll lose and lose badly. They're only fans of democracies where people aren't allowed to changes their minds when they know the facts of what they are voting on rather than made up bollocks.

Remain vs leave with May's deal.

The idea that it is undemocratic to ask the people if they have changed their mind in the light of (a) clear evidence that the sort of have cake and eat it brexit promised is no obtainable and (b)parliament's inability to agree what sort of achievable Brexit they want is utterly ludicrous. 

Further for all but the most extreme Breximorons the balancing exercise between pissing some people off by asking them to vote again versus crashing the economy, possibly for generations, with a no deal Brexit is really quite an easy one.

A 2nd referendum is now a now brainer, and I think 70% of MPs secretly know it.

Apparently in recent polling, people who say they want "no deal" fall into three categories:

1. People who think it means trading on WTO rules "like the rest of the world" and don't understand that no advanced economy in the world actually trades on WTO rules and that this would in fact be a very bad outcome;

2. People who know what it means and want to see everything burn;

and (amazingly)

3. People who think it means we are saying no to the deal on the table and so we would remain on current terms.

Putting it on a ballot paper would be spectacularly negligent.

The poll must be Mays deal or Remain.  Nothing else is tenable.

I just don't see how it can happen. Both parties in their manifestos pledged to respect the referendum result. A second referendum would be Parliament's way of saying "sorry, we're incapable of sorting this out ourselves". You'd atomise trust in politics for a generation.

Add to that you'd be upsetting 17.4m people who voted Leave last time, only for Parliament to then deny them what they voted for.

This is Parliament's mess to sort out before things get any worse.

You'd atomise trust in politics for a generation.

Too late.

Add to that you'd be upsetting 17.4m people who voted Leave last time, only for Parliament to then deny them what they voted for.

As above.

I cannot see how that option will not just lead us back to the same place again.  The referendum has to lead to a clear result.  Given parliament will not countenance no deal and given the deal on the table is the only deal we have I cannot see any other option being worth asking.  Personally I would like no deal to be a third option as is would split the Brexit vote ensuring a remain win I think but I think brexiteers would rightly cry foul at splitting the Brexit vote and I am not sure parliament would be prepared to execute the wishes of the people were it to be a no deal in any event.

This is Parliament's mess to sort out before things get any worse.

And in theory Parliament could revoke the withdrawal legislation and we could withdraw our Article 50 notification without going back to the people. That is what Parliament could do to sort out the mess before things get any worse.

But I think you would probably agree that given a choice between that and a referendum between the current deal and remaining, the latter option has more democratic legitimacy. Giving people the opportunity to change their minds and remain, or take the deal on offer, rather than just unilaterally saying the people got it wrong and we're not doing it.

""A second referendum would be Parliament's way of saying "sorry, we're incapable of sorting this out ourselves"""

I think that cat is already out of the bag

"Add to that you'd be upsetting 17.4m people who voted Leave last time, only for Parliament to then deny them what they voted for."

Yes some will be upset, but many more will be upset if the economy tanks and they lose their jobs through a no deal brexit.  

Incidently I am not sure why people keep talking about 17.4m, that is an irrelevant figure without also stating the number who voted against.  Percentages are a far better representation of how the country split  52/48.  A figure so close people like Farage (before he knew which way it was going to go) said could not be determinative of such a huge decision.

But I think you would probably agree that given a choice between that and a referendum between the current deal and remaining, the latter option has more democratic legitimacy.

Of course it would. But the sensible way forward would be to secure agreement on the backstop that Parliament can live with. People who say "it can't be done" are deluded. Of course it can. Time to wait and see.

I disagree, if Labour backed the referendum on basis of Mays deal or remain they would have to vote for Mays deal if that was the result.  The breximorons will vote against it whatever but they are a minority and its time they stopped holding the country to ransom.

Guy the problem with remain v May's deal is that without the option of no deal in a people's vote, May's deal still won't get through the meaning full vote 

How so?

There aren't enough "no deal" maniacs in the Commons to block it on that basis, and if Parliament would reject May's deal on the grounds that it's not what people voted for, then including it as an option against remain would solve that issue.

Of course it would. But the sensible way forward would be to secure agreement on the backstop that Parliament can live with. People who say "it can't be done" are deluded. Of course it can. Time to wait and see.

Backstop means backstop. The people who want us to be able to unilaterally end the backstop have failed to understand the whole fooking point of the backstop.

Incidently I am not sure why people keep talking about 17.4m, that is an irrelevant figure without also stating the number who voted against.

It's relevant when you consider a second referendum. Do you think enough of that 52% will just accept they were wrong / too thick to vote correctly the first time around? Keep in mind the poisonous nature of this debate. For two years they've been derided as stupid and xenophobic by those who lost out the first time around.

Rather than take the serious risk of another referendum, parliament need to act like adults and compromise in the interests of the nation. Otherwise we're looking at serious unrest.

Fred, that is not an answer to the point at all.  The figure of 17.4m on its own is meaningless without also taking about the total numbers who voted.  It is used as a rhetorical device to try to airbrush away the 48% who voted remain.

Another rhetorical device used by brexiteers is to say the argument for another referendum is that people were too "stupid and xenophobic".  No that is not the argument for another referendum, I have set out the argument above, in addition when a major decision is made with little information it is madness not to revisit it when further information becomes available.  You may make a decision to buy a house but change your mind when you discover the price is far higher than advertised and find the survey reveals subsidence.  This does not make your original decision "stupid" you are just stupid if you don't re-consider.

Fred, you keep talking about the risk of "serious unrest" and "people losing faith in democracy". It's almost as if you haven't realised that these things are inevitable now whatever happens.

If we don't leave (or even if we leave but don't leave "properly" in the eyes of the most extreme Brexiters), those people lose their faith in democracy.

If we "leave properly", then people in Northern Ireland will lose their faith in democracy because their votes for the Good Friday Agreement and in favour of remaining in the EU will have been disregarded. People in Scotland who were persuaded to vote "no" to independence because they didn't want to lose their EU membership will lose their faith in democracy because they will feel that Westminster politicians told them what they wanted to hear to persuade them to remain in the UK and now they're expected to put up and shut up. People who voted leave thinking we would be like Norway, or that we would get £350m a week for the NHS, or that they didn't need to worry about losing their job because the leavers reassured them it was just "Project Fear" will feel betrayed. And remainers who knew all along that the promises of the leave campaign were a load of bollocks will lose their faith in democracy because they will see that you can lie and cheat and break the law as much as you like to win a referendum with no consequences, and that even when this is known before the result of the referendum has been implemented, the people will not be given an opportunity to change their mind because their views are no longer important.

Given that whatever happens, some or maybe even most people's faith in democracy will have taken a serious battering, perhaps it's better to focus on rebuilding faith in democracy among those who will be voting for longer.

As for "serious unrest", we are also damned if we do and damned if we don't. Do you think the people threatening to "take to the streets" if we don't get a good hard Brexiting will sit quietly at home if supermarket shelves are empty and they can't get their meds?

There's an awful lot said about upsetting the 17.4 million who voted leave.

Suggestions are that a bunch of them have died off. A few more have changed their mind.

What about upsetting the 16.14 million who voted remain?  And the younger voters who are now enfranchised, but were not at the time? 

If I had the necessary influence, I would be calling for 16.14 dirty protests on the steps of westminster, to do to them what they have done to us for the last 2 years and more.

I honestly do not trust or accept the legitimacy of a parliamentary process and democratic system which has brought us to this.

37%.  This is being done to appease a MAXIMUM of 37% of the electorate.  Demographics and polls suggest this number will have dropped substantially.

Do you think enough of that 52% will just accept they were wrong / too thick to vote correctly the first time around?

If we have a cold winter a significant chunk of them won't be around for a second vote

We should also schedule the vote for when Chelsea are playing away, ensuring a large number of racists won't be around.

A no deal Brexit will lead to economic chaos, civil unrest and the break up of the Union/re-ignition of the troubles in Ireland.    There is no comparison between that and upsetting some people who think it is a bit rum to be asked the same question twice.  I understand the arguments against a 2nd referendum but really they pale compared to chaos of a no deal brexit

it would be pretty funny if there was a 2nd referendum and people voted to leave with no deal

it will not on the ballot paper because parliament will not deliver it

I understand the arguments against a 2nd referendum but really they pale compared to chaos of a no deal brexit

You're assuming no deal would actually involve 'chaos'. It might, but correct planning (which may or may not have taken place) would mitigate it.

It hasn't taken place and there isn't enough time to plan for it properly now. HTH.

"no deal is better than a bad deal"

you don't hear politicians saying this any more do you. presumably because they are starting to real what an utter clusterfook no deal would be.

You don't hear "Strong and stable" so much anymore either.

The backstop only applies to Northern Ireland. It's up to the UK how it makes that work.

Do catholic splitters outnumber the proddy unions in Norn yet? If we had a referendum there it would presumably sort this out (and also start a civil war but thats irelands problem)

Wellers the most recent poll on May's deal v no deal has no deal at 52%.

I just can't see Parliament agreeing what the ballot should say.  

ps - I'd vote for no deal versus May's deal and remain

FFS, you can't take off no deal and then claim that there is nothing undemocratic about re-running the referendum. No deal is the only option which is effectively leaving the EU.

If you don't include it, then the result will not be respected and people will think it is just a stitch up and political discourse will continue to be polluted for the foreseeable. Proper hard right populist parties could even start to win a few Parliamentary seats. It is as bad as the proposal to leave Remain off the ballot and just choose between no deal and TMPM's deal.

The only way a second referendum is justifiable (and personally I think it is) is if ALL options are available and we deliver what people actually want. If you are not on board with that, then ferchrissake, just admit this exercise is just a sticking plaster to make you feel better and piss off.

According to you lot, people never really voted for no deal anyway, so you what have you got to lose? You put it on the ballot and the true level of support for it is revealed as not very much and we can all move along with nobody able to claim they have been diddled.

Q1: Leave or Remain.

Q2: If Leave wins a majority, do you want No Deal or TMPM's deal?

No. If the Scots want another Indyref, that's up to them.

There have to be some checks and balances, Goose. 

No deal is an unacceptable outcome. It puts minority groups at serious risk and would be so damaging that it is reasonable to conclude that the people who say they want it don't have a clue what they're saying. 

If it's not an acceptable outcome, you don't put it on the fooking ballot paper. Because you don't know exactly how many people are fooking stupid enough to vote for it until you count them. 

No, sorry. You don't get to make that call. If No Deal is not on the ballot, then this is not a democratic exercise, it is just a fig leaf. If people want to take an economic hit for other principles, then that is the choice. If you're not going to put all choices on the ballot, just don't fvcking bother at all.

There is no way no deal wins that choice anyway. All Remain voters would presumably vote for TMPM's deal over no deal for starters and then, as you have been telling us ad nauseum, only a handful of Leave voters actually want no deal. Odd that you have suddenly lost the courage of your convictions on that one.

Goose, it's quite clear that most people don't have a fooking clue what no deal actually means, and if you try to explain it you get accused of "scaremongering".

We live in a representative democracy. Referendums on complex issues aren't a great idea at the best of times, but parliament should be prepared to implement the result. That means not putting something unacceptable or undeliverable as an option.

If you don't like it, join UKIP or start another nutter party and try and get a majority in the Commons. 

You could equally argue that Remain is unacceptable because people already voted to leave and if you want Remain on the ballet join Greens or some other nutter party and try to get a majority in the Commons.

The ONLY way from here is a second referendum that embraces all options. You need the political buy-in for this to succeed.

Soz.

strikes me that the goose makes a telling point with his proposed options.  

I remain (lame political self heh) convinced that out would win a str8 in out rerun and by a similar margin (yes anna and others I realise u dont think 52ish/48ish was a "decisive" result, but I really always have thought so, let us leave that to one side.

Anyway to the point, we should run a ref with 3 options: leave, no deal, TMPM deal. Highest % wins.

and for your vote to be valid you have to be willing to contractually agree to stfu about brexit for at least 40 years or forfeit all your assets bona vacantia.

Bosh.

PS, if your fear is that there are THAT many people who would vote No Deal that it could win, I am not sure you really want to drive them to vote for UKIP to get what they want.

This is exactly why we are in this mess because mainstream parties ignore people, allowing populist nutters to gain the upper hand. You seem to have learnt nothing from this process.

Valid votes cast would be less than 10% of the electorate with that caveat attached Wango.

Look Goose, would you let your children vote on whether to eat their broccoli or stick their fingers in a live plug socket? 

No, you would not. 

People who think we should leave with no deal are basically children who want to stick their fingers in live plug sockets, and should be treated as such. 

While superficially appealing to you, your analogy is sadly a big pile of horseshyte.

You just hate democracy. Own it, FFS.

"valid votes cast would be less than 10% of the electorate"

I think I quote the illearned Captain Swing when I say 

SUCK IT UP

dealer makes the rules old sun

I am 100% sure that it is far more detailed than yours, HTH. 

Goose, I believe in democracy. I'm just not sure how cheating to win referendums, denying people the option to change their mind and attempting to block parliament from holding the government to account = democracy. 

Anyway to the point, we should run a ref with 3 options: leave, no deal, TMPM deal. Highest % wins.

I'd go along with that on one proviso - 50% turnout is required.

personally I think the UK needs some "me time"

you're full of sh1t, give us a shout when you're sane again

That would handicap the side of the righteous ColLol - we would then be reliant on the much talked about recently emancipated getting out of bed.  bad strategy.

and riot-wise, my bets are as follows:

revoke art 50, some little rioting maybe, demos more like

no deal, and you might see more 2011 style rioting and a bit more often

In the three choice option outlined above, there would not be a leave vote, there would be leave hard or leave soft and neither would gain the highest %ge of the three options.  that was the whole (obvious) point of my (obviously) facetious post.

And even if options b and c got in aggregate more than a, I'd tell you to go fck yourselves

last week I argued that if May’s deal is rejected by the House then it cant then be an option on a ref ballot paper ( seeing as MPs have already rejected it).

but if there is a ref without the prior vote on May’s deal then yes it can. This might have fed into May’s decision to postpone - keeps the deal “alive” . And ofc she believes its the best Brexit terms remember.

my only assistance is to say lower casing it makes it read tampon 

Permitted to run but not permitted to actually win. If the system allowed for them to win they wouldn't be allowed to actually run. And a general election does not have quite the same magnitude of importance, does it now?