2. No deal. If brexit actually happens I want it to be as much of a disaster as possible, to punish those who voted for it, who unlike me generally work in sectors that depend on foreign trade.
I think if there is a second referendum the question should be:
Shall we remain a member of the EU or;
Shall we remain a member of the EU
I think anything else just wouldn't be valid. Remember Leavers are nazi racist w**kstains and only remainers should have the right to vote. This way, we can stop these nasty leave shitter voting. I mean what's the point if this is the question. HEHEEHEHHEE aren't we remainers soooo fooking clever.
I think the first question should be do we stay or do we go, and the second question should be about how the Leave campaign leaders should be punished if we stay.
Laz, the problem with that is you would be "punishing" many more people who wanted to remain or who couldn't vote first time round (u18). I would love to see leavers totally fvked but these people are going to be unhappy whatever happens so personally I won't let them dictate my behaviour.
P.S. I very much did vote Remain, Lady P. And I regret that it was lost back then (for which I blame Cameron and the EU, but also Corbyn). But regret that it was lost does not mean a belief the result should be ignored, and the behaviour of many since the result has convinced me we must now leave, although it may not be a one way trip.
I want literally everybody who voted Leave to be unhappy every day until they die. If you were under 18 last time then you didn’t vote Leave so I regret any adverse impact upon you. But if brexit happens then I hope people reap the fooking whirlwind I really do. I’ll be in Ireland.
I agree it seems unbalanced to have one option for Q2 as the default, but I think a hanging chad scenario around votes on Q2 would be a disaster, and it helps overcome griping about neverendums etc if the main complainers get the benefit of the default.
I think those that advocate Remain have to accept that they have to get their votes right, and impress upon those they are trying to persuade to switch on Q1 that in any event they should pick deal for Q2.
I’ve no interest at all in unity or healing or the health of civic society or any of that bollocks. We have a good civil society, that works reasonably well for nearly everybody, and these aunts voted to trash it because they wanted to give politicians a poke in the eye. If my side lose this war then I want us to win the peace by hearing the wail of the enemy and his womenfolk when his FDI driven factory closes and he has to boil his fooking shoes to eatX
Laz, as other people have pointed out, everyone that didn't vote for no deal will have to live with it as well. But not you, because you'll be in Hong Kong/Ireland/Belgium/whichever one it is this week.
It is completely unethical for someone who doesn't live in the UK to vote for no deal on behalf of those who do.
And I’m from a part of the country that voted Leave. These are my people I’m talking about, so I take their betrayal doubly personally. Unlike most people where I’m from, which has some of the poorest educational attainment in england, I worked hard at school, and so I got out. And I consistently voted for the money I paid in tax to be directed towards public services and regeneration, which it was with considerable effect, And those aunts go and vote to trash what I value, as a thank you. fook em. The day Nissan closes Sunderland I’m going to dance a fooking jig.
I don't understand people who are changing from remain to leave on the basis that remain lost the first time. The new vote would be as much of a democratic moment as the last referendum and you should be voting based on the evidence before you (ie the consequences of leaving) rather than some misguided loyalty to the result of a(n) historic (and in my opinion misinformed) vote.
And I’m from a part of the country that voted Leave. These are my people I’m talking about, so I take their betrayal doubly personally. Unlike most people where I’m from, which has some of the poorest educational attainment in england, I worked hard at school, and so I got out.
No one cares. And they certainly don't consider themselves "your people".
The issue of 'deal' or 'no deal' is a bit misleading as ultimately there would be a deal even if a free trade agreement. However, if all negotiations broke down then no deal. The only way economically (for the economy as a whole although certain sections of society will be hard ironically many who voted leave) would be to become a Singapore off the stores of continental Europe. Low tax, low social cover. Not want I would want to happen but otherwise will go back to being the sick man of Europe.
I mean, I would be tempted to do likewise. I think leaving with no deal is genuinely the only way to prove to leave voters how fooking stupid and wrong they are, and how they should have listened to the people who actually know what the fook they're talking about.
But on the other hand, nearly all my friends and family live in the UK, and half the medication my dad takes to keep him alive is on the list of drugs which are expected to be in short supply in a no deal scenario, and ultimately I'm not a complete fooking bellend, so I wouldn't.
Is this not a drafting point? On balance I would interpret it to mean you don't need to answer the second question if you vote remain, but you could argue both interpretations.
If you supposed to answer both if you vote remain, it should say so clearly.
Wait a minute, Coffers said he would vote Leave in a second ref?? He was deffo a Remain voter first time round. Anna, given you don't believe these people exist, I am surprised you have not delved into the reasoning for this one.
Don't you mean it is completely unethical for someone who doesn't live in the UK to vote?
No, I don't think so. Actually I think the 15 year rule should be abolished. Plenty of other countries allow their citizens to continue to vote in elections indefinitely, no matter how long they've lived abroad. And for British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years and don't have citizenship of the country where they live, they don't have the right to vote at all, anywhere, which I think is wrong.
But voting specifically for no deal, when you know that it will cause genuine chaos and hardship (and potentially even civil war) for everyone who lives in the UK, when you don't live there or have to suffer that chaos and hardship yourself, yeah, I think that is wrong.
I'd remain. Not that I think the EU is the best place to be ever, though. It's corrupt and needs an overhaul. But doing such a monumental flounce out of it is going to be so incredibly damaging....
Wait a minute, Coffers said he would vote Leave in a second ref??
Yeah I was surprised by that, but I don't actually believe him. In the secrecy of the voting booth he'll check the remain box again, because he might have some funny political views but he's a complete idiot.
if only people who answer remain in your first q can answer the second q then isn't the first q otiose? presumably this is how you'd like elections to generally be - only people who agree with the right answer can vote?
Asking people to vote on whether they want a deal or no deal is akin got the stupid question we were asked that got us into to this mess in the irst place
if only people who answer remain in your first q can answer the second q then isn't the first q otiose? presumably this is how you'd like elections to generally be - only people who agree with the right answer can vote?
No Clubbers, this is in response to panda who believes that in a two question referendum people who vote remain to the first question will decline to answer the second.
So the responses of anyone who would answer leave to the first question are not required.
But voting specifically for no deal, when you know that it will cause genuine chaos and hardship (and potentially even civil war) for everyone who lives in the UK, when you don't live there or have to suffer that chaos and hardship yourself, yeah, I think that is wrong.
And a leaver would, equally validly, say it is unethical to vote remain if you live elsewhere in the EU as you clearly have a vested interest.
And, to be honest, why on earth should a British citizen who lives in the EU and stands to be severely affected by this not have a say in whether we leave or not?
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for no deal is that they are voting for something which will seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, but not people who live abroad.
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for no deal is that they are voting for something which will seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, but not people who live abroad
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for remain is that they are voting for something which may, depending on the numbers, 'overrule' a majority leave vote of people who actually live in the UK (and, as such, have to deal with the consequences).
And let's be honest, if one had to vote in a manner which did not seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, then no one would be able to vote Tory.
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for remain is that they are voting for something which may, depending on the numbers, 'overrule' a majority leave vote of people who actually live in the UK (and, as such, have to deal with the consequences).
There are no "consequences" of remaining. It means people continue with their lives as normal and nobody loses their job or their right to live where they do as a result.
And let's be honest, if one had to vote in a manner which did not seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, then no one would be able to vote Tory.
To be fair, a lot of people genuinely believe that the Tories are the ones who can be trusted with the economy and therefore having a Tory government is more in the country's best interests than having a Labour government. Of course, if they still think that after what has happened since 2015 then they probably are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Someone clearly wasn't concentrating during the campaign! Did you not see the big red NHS bus?! Or Farage's big billboard?! And did you not hear the fact that by remaining we are submitting ourselves to a European superstate?!
On a serious note, though, maintaining a status quo does have consequences. You, and I, just believe them to be beneficial.
What consequences would those be? I am assuming by consequences we mean something that actually happens as a result of the vote (otherwise it is not a consequence of the vote).
if it is not possible to agree a deal with the EU, would people rather a) remain or b) leave with no deal?
It is perfectly possible to agree a deal with the EU. A deal has been agreed. Alternative deals could also be agreed if the government's red lines were to shift.
It would be neat and tidy to have a deal that ties up loose ends - with no restrictions on any future relationships.
But that is not May’s ‘deal’. The draft Withdrawal Agreement says much more about the future than it does about tying up loose ends.
Specifically the backdrop sets membership of the EU Customs Union and Single Market as a floor for the future relationship. There would be absolutely no incentive for the EU to agree for anything less.
One consequence would be that the pretence of parliamentary sovereignty would be utterly destroyed. It currently hangs on the fig leaf that Parliament could always extract itself from the EU by an Act of Parliament. If we admit that this is not actually possible, then parliamentary sovereignty is dead.
Not to mention the fact that the only way of remaining at this point is either for parliament to decide we are revoking Article 50 and drawing a line under this nonsense, or for parliament to legislate for a further referendum with the option to remain.
If you get a vote, and I should get a vote given the amount of tax I’ve paid up to and including this year, then it’s perfectly ethical to exercise it between the available choices on whatever basis you choose. If they think a particular option is unethical then they shouldn’t offer you it.
Voting to remain may be an act of parliament but you are missing the point I was making - even if it is Parliament's will to kill parliamentary sovereignty, that doesn't make it any less dead.
Voting to remain may be an act of parliament but you are missing the point I was making - even if it is Parliament's will to kill parliamentary sovereignty, that doesn't make it any less dead.
The biggest threat to parliamentary sovereignty is deciding to put things to a referendum in the first place. Ignoring the result would be parliament saying, "actually, we just remembered that we are sovereign and not you, and if you don't like it, feel free to express your feelings at the next general election".
This is parliamentary sovereignty.
It is perfectly possible for Parliament to vote to take us out of the EU. They voted to trigger Article 50, and to give themselves a meaningful vote on the deal negotiated. In order for the vote to be meaningful, they had to have the possibility of voting either for or against the deal. They voted against it, repeatedly. They then voted to force Theresa May to request an extension because they were not happy with the deal or with the prospect of crashing out without a deal. They made their intention to prevent no deal so clear to Boris Johnson that he has tried to shut down Parliament and take away their power, and what happened? They managed to pass legislation requiring him to request a further extension if a deal is not done by late October before being shut down, and simultaneously several of them took him to court to fight against their being shut down, and they might well win.
Brexit might have started off as a threat to parliamentary sovereignty (given the obvious conflict between representative and direct democracy), but right now parliamentary sovereignty appears to be more alive and kicking than it has been at any other point in my lifetime.
Saying that failing to leave the EU will mean that parliamentary sovereignty is dead is completely fooking absurd. If parliament were not sovereign, we'd have left by now.
Anna, you are completely missing the point and I am not sure whether you are doing it on purpose or are just dense. Parliament has been exercising its sovereignty in trying to override the result of the referendum, yes. Agreed. But the point about whether the EU is sovereign over Parliament has always been a bit of a fudge and the pretence has always been maintained that because we could leave the EU by an Act of Parliament, Parliament remains sovereign. If we get to the point where we acknowledge that actually it is not possible for us to leave because any deal would be unacceptable and no deal is so prohibitive as to amount to an impossibility, then the fig leaf is removed. You might not like that conclusion but I don't see how you avoid it.
It is a very complicated situation and hard to resolve.
Mrs May, Boris J, my remainer Tory MP and many others backed the perfectly acceptable withdrawal agreement but MPs have chosen not to three times and are the ones pushing us to no deal. MPs are hopelessly divided over this (as is the country).
I would prefer we stayed in but I very much fear my learned friend Mr Clubman is correct and staying now simply wouldn't work. I think on balance I would vote remain and cross my fingers but it's not a no brainer. Revoking article 50 would however, at worst, buy us to time to try and properly figure out what our ultimate departure should look like and negotiate it properly with the EU (without a no deal time bomb ticking).
I would answer the second question. If the 'deal' is TMPM's deal then I would vote no deal. If it was an NI only backstop then I would (reluctantly) vote deal.
So that people's faith in democracy is restored, apparently.
As long as THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is done, nobody will mind that it looks nothing like what they were promised before the referendum or that their mum's cancer treatment has been cancelled because they can't get the radioactive isotopes.
May’s Withdrawal Agreement is leaving with no deal in the area that really matters: the long-term future relationship.
I'm fairly sure that people on the breadline who can't afford to absorb food price rises or who rely on imported medicine with a short lifespan would be of the view that the immediate short term also "really matters".
Remain is not an unambiguously good outcome. It will leave millions feeling disenfranchised and alienated - with unknowable but certainly not good results. UK will be left humiliated as an unwelcome member of the EU club, having been unable to leave, and this would have unwelcome electoral consequences across Europe. On balance, and accepting the negative economic consequences, I think the best option at this point is to leave with a deal but if a deal is not possible then to leave without.
Happier than they'd be if their vote was ignored, yes. They'd also own the economic consequences, so people like Laz could jump up and down pointing and laughing when Nissan closes.
Because the short-term matters should be, well, short-term, leavers could agree to the one-off cost or a finite transition period, with only a grumble.
The problem with May’s Withdrawal Agreement is that it isn’t about Withdrawal, short-term measures and a finite time-limited transition. It locks the U.K. into the EU Customs Union and Single Market forever.
Because the short-term matters should be, well, short-term, leavers could agree to the one-off cost or a finite transition period, with only a grumble.
Not so short term if you die as a consequence due to lack of insulin or people kicking off about the Irish border.
0
0
1. Remain
2. No deal. If brexit actually happens I want it to be as much of a disaster as possible, to punish those who voted for it, who unlike me generally work in sectors that depend on foreign trade.
0
0
You're not a remainer, dipshit.
0
0
I voted Remain first time. I would now vote Leave. So:
1. Leave
2. Doesn’t that depend on the deal?
Would answer both, obviously, because I’m not an entitled brat
0
0
No you didn't.
So you're not a remainer, are you sweetheart?
0
0
Leave
Leave with a deal
0
0
It's pretty amusing and encouraging to see how many leavers can't RTFQ.
Helps our cause rather a lot.
0
0
This is the answer to all our problems I have always advocated.
I would vote Remain and Deal. I think the legislation would have to provide that a vote on Q1 but not Q2 defaults to No Deal.
0
0
I can't see Parliament legislating in any way that makes no deal a more likely outcome.
0
0
I think if there is a second referendum the question should be:
Shall we remain a member of the EU or;
Shall we remain a member of the EU
I think anything else just wouldn't be valid. Remember Leavers are nazi racist w**kstains and only remainers should have the right to vote. This way, we can stop these nasty leave shitter voting. I mean what's the point if this is the question. HEHEEHEHHEE aren't we remainers soooo fooking clever.
0
0
1. Remain
2. I wouldn’t answer
0
0
I think the first question should be do we stay or do we go, and the second question should be about how the Leave campaign leaders should be punished if we stay.
0
0
Don’t you oppress Lady P, Sir Pitt C., she’s really thought this through.
0
0
Laz, the problem with that is you would be "punishing" many more people who wanted to remain or who couldn't vote first time round (u18). I would love to see leavers totally fvked but these people are going to be unhappy whatever happens so personally I won't let them dictate my behaviour.
0
0
Is that what he's attempting to do? I thought he was just spaffing his excess stupidity all over the internet.
0
0
Q1 - remain
Q2 - deal
0
0
1. Remain
2. Deal
which is really tortologous as the deal is just £39bn to stay in.
0
0
P.S. I very much did vote Remain, Lady P. And I regret that it was lost back then (for which I blame Cameron and the EU, but also Corbyn). But regret that it was lost does not mean a belief the result should be ignored, and the behaviour of many since the result has convinced me we must now leave, although it may not be a one way trip.
0
0
I want literally everybody who voted Leave to be unhappy every day until they die. If you were under 18 last time then you didn’t vote Leave so I regret any adverse impact upon you. But if brexit happens then I hope people reap the fooking whirlwind I really do. I’ll be in Ireland.
0
0
Of course leaving is a one way trip.
0
0
I agree it seems unbalanced to have one option for Q2 as the default, but I think a hanging chad scenario around votes on Q2 would be a disaster, and it helps overcome griping about neverendums etc if the main complainers get the benefit of the default.
I think those that advocate Remain have to accept that they have to get their votes right, and impress upon those they are trying to persuade to switch on Q1 that in any event they should pick deal for Q2.
0
0
I’ve no interest at all in unity or healing or the health of civic society or any of that bollocks. We have a good civil society, that works reasonably well for nearly everybody, and these aunts voted to trash it because they wanted to give politicians a poke in the eye. If my side lose this war then I want us to win the peace by hearing the wail of the enemy and his womenfolk when his FDI driven factory closes and he has to boil his fooking shoes to eatX
0
0
Laz, as other people have pointed out, everyone that didn't vote for no deal will have to live with it as well. But not you, because you'll be in Hong Kong/Ireland/Belgium/whichever one it is this week.
It is completely unethical for someone who doesn't live in the UK to vote for no deal on behalf of those who do.
0
0
And I’m from a part of the country that voted Leave. These are my people I’m talking about, so I take their betrayal doubly personally. Unlike most people where I’m from, which has some of the poorest educational attainment in england, I worked hard at school, and so I got out. And I consistently voted for the money I paid in tax to be directed towards public services and regeneration, which it was with considerable effect, And those aunts go and vote to trash what I value, as a thank you. fook em. The day Nissan closes Sunderland I’m going to dance a fooking jig.
0
0
Remain
If leave with deal.
I don't understand people who are changing from remain to leave on the basis that remain lost the first time. The new vote would be as much of a democratic moment as the last referendum and you should be voting based on the evidence before you (ie the consequences of leaving) rather than some misguided loyalty to the result of a(n) historic (and in my opinion misinformed) vote.
0
0
No one cares. And they certainly don't consider themselves "your people".
0
0
I don't think they are. I think they are leavers trying to give the impression that people aren't just changing their minds in one direction.
0
0
They’re definitely not going to consider themselves that when I vote for their regional economy to be reminded what it was like when the mines closed.
0
0
Remain.
The issue of 'deal' or 'no deal' is a bit misleading as ultimately there would be a deal even if a free trade agreement. However, if all negotiations broke down then no deal. The only way economically (for the economy as a whole although certain sections of society will be hard ironically many who voted leave) would be to become a Singapore off the stores of continental Europe. Low tax, low social cover. Not want I would want to happen but otherwise will go back to being the sick man of Europe.
0
0
I would answer both.
And then draw a picture of Boris shitting on the UK. And then draw another picture of Corbyn sitting in said shit with a zip over his mouth.
0
0
I am 100% definitely putting No Deal as the answer to the second Q if they phrase it like that. 100%.
0
0
I mean, I would be tempted to do likewise. I think leaving with no deal is genuinely the only way to prove to leave voters how fooking stupid and wrong they are, and how they should have listened to the people who actually know what the fook they're talking about.
But on the other hand, nearly all my friends and family live in the UK, and half the medication my dad takes to keep him alive is on the list of drugs which are expected to be in short supply in a no deal scenario, and ultimately I'm not a complete fooking bellend, so I wouldn't.
0
0
Don't you mean it is completely unethical for someone who doesn't live in the UK to vote?
0
0
I am a complete fooking bellend, so that particular factor is less of an issue for me.
0
0
Is this not a drafting point? On balance I would interpret it to mean you don't need to answer the second question if you vote remain, but you could argue both interpretations.
If you supposed to answer both if you vote remain, it should say so clearly.
0
0
Wait a minute, Coffers said he would vote Leave in a second ref?? He was deffo a Remain voter first time round. Anna, given you don't believe these people exist, I am surprised you have not delved into the reasoning for this one.
0
0
No, I don't think so. Actually I think the 15 year rule should be abolished. Plenty of other countries allow their citizens to continue to vote in elections indefinitely, no matter how long they've lived abroad. And for British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years and don't have citizenship of the country where they live, they don't have the right to vote at all, anywhere, which I think is wrong.
But voting specifically for no deal, when you know that it will cause genuine chaos and hardship (and potentially even civil war) for everyone who lives in the UK, when you don't live there or have to suffer that chaos and hardship yourself, yeah, I think that is wrong.
0
0
I'd remain. Not that I think the EU is the best place to be ever, though. It's corrupt and needs an overhaul. But doing such a monumental flounce out of it is going to be so incredibly damaging....
0
0
Yeah I was surprised by that, but I don't actually believe him. In the secrecy of the voting booth he'll check the remain box again, because he might have some funny political views but he's a complete idiot.
0
0
Anna how does one find out which drugs will be in short supply, you referred to a list?
0
0
*not a complete idiot. (I don't think so anyway.)
Heh.
0
0
Yes, there is one somewhere. I can't remember where I saw it now, but will post it if I find it again.
0
0
leave
deal
I think the ramifications for the future of the UK of not leaving would be traumatic. we'd be endlessly fvcking leaving and not leaving for ever more
but if we're going to leave there should be a deal.
0
0
Clubbers, I know this is a difficult one, but if you would vote leave, you are not a remainer and this poll is not for you.
And wtf @ this:
Stable door, horse, bolted m7. Whatever happens it is going to be traumatic. And yet you still vote for the party that caused all this mess.
0
0
Both, in line with my first vote -
Remain
Deal
Alghouth I think it's bat sh** crazy to ask people to vote on this stuff now. Horse/ Stable/ Bolted etc etc
0
0
if only people who answer remain in your first q can answer the second q then isn't the first q otiose? presumably this is how you'd like elections to generally be - only people who agree with the right answer can vote?
0
0
*Although
Asking people to vote on whether they want a deal or no deal is akin got the stupid question we were asked that got us into to this mess in the irst place
0
0
we'd be endlessly fvcking leaving and not leaving for ever more
Schrodinger's Brexit...
0
0
No Clubbers, this is in response to panda who believes that in a two question referendum people who vote remain to the first question will decline to answer the second.
So the responses of anyone who would answer leave to the first question are not required.
0
0
I agree, but how else are we going to resolve it? Parliament is deadlocked.
0
0
I would answer both questions.
HTH.
0
0
And a leaver would, equally validly, say it is unethical to vote remain if you live elsewhere in the EU as you clearly have a vested interest.
0
0
We all have a vested interest.
0
0
clubman, it's only a rof poll ffs.
0
0
And, to be honest, why on earth should a British citizen who lives in the EU and stands to be severely affected by this not have a say in whether we leave or not?
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for no deal is that they are voting for something which will seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, but not people who live abroad.
0
0
How is voting remain unethical? What is the downside? A: there is no fooking downside.
0
0
The rationale for it being unethical for people who live abroad to vote for remain is that they are voting for something which may, depending on the numbers, 'overrule' a majority leave vote of people who actually live in the UK (and, as such, have to deal with the consequences).
And let's be honest, if one had to vote in a manner which did not seriously (and negatively) affect people who live in the UK, then no one would be able to vote Tory.
0
0
There are no "consequences" of remaining. It means people continue with their lives as normal and nobody loses their job or their right to live where they do as a result.
To be fair, a lot of people genuinely believe that the Tories are the ones who can be trusted with the economy and therefore having a Tory government is more in the country's best interests than having a Labour government. Of course, if they still think that after what has happened since 2015 then they probably are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
0
0
1. Remain
2. No Deal (unless deal is referenced to TM deal or some other) otherwise this pantomime merely continues...
0
0
I was working on the assumption that "deal" would be a particular deal that has been agreed.
0
0
There is a deal that was agreed between Theresa May and the EU27.
0
0
Someone clearly wasn't concentrating during the campaign! Did you not see the big red NHS bus?! Or Farage's big billboard?! And did you not hear the fact that by remaining we are submitting ourselves to a European superstate?!
On a serious note, though, maintaining a status quo does have consequences. You, and I, just believe them to be beneficial.
0
0
Is that really what people are proposing for a second referendum? It doesn't solve anything.
The question that needs answering is, if it is not possible to agree a deal with the EU, would people rather a) remain or b) leave with no deal?
Without an answer to that question we will simply continue with the current deadlock.
0
0
What consequences would those be? I am assuming by consequences we mean something that actually happens as a result of the vote (otherwise it is not a consequence of the vote).
0
0
It is perfectly possible to agree a deal with the EU. A deal has been agreed. Alternative deals could also be agreed if the government's red lines were to shift.
0
0
Why not? Nobody knows whether the people would vote for it or not.
0
0
It would be neat and tidy to have a deal that ties up loose ends - with no restrictions on any future relationships.
But that is not May’s ‘deal’. The draft Withdrawal Agreement says much more about the future than it does about tying up loose ends.
Specifically the backdrop sets membership of the EU Customs Union and Single Market as a floor for the future relationship. There would be absolutely no incentive for the EU to agree for anything less.
0
0
One consequence would be that the pretence of parliamentary sovereignty would be utterly destroyed. It currently hangs on the fig leaf that Parliament could always extract itself from the EU by an Act of Parliament. If we admit that this is not actually possible, then parliamentary sovereignty is dead.
0
0
Heh. Crashing out with no deal against the express wishes of parliament will certainly do that.
0
0
Not to mention the fact that the only way of remaining at this point is either for parliament to decide we are revoking Article 50 and drawing a line under this nonsense, or for parliament to legislate for a further referendum with the option to remain.
Parliamentary sovereignty in action.
0
0
Remain
Deal
Any remainer who would vote no deal or does not answer is as reckless as Johnson.
0
0
Having read the many rants on this thread the one thing I have determined is that Meh is pretty much the only person who actually read the question.
0
0
If you get a vote, and I should get a vote given the amount of tax I’ve paid up to and including this year, then it’s perfectly ethical to exercise it between the available choices on whatever basis you choose. If they think a particular option is unethical then they shouldn’t offer you it.
0
0
lol at the suggestion the electorate can answer 2 questions.
Last time it didn’t even understand the single one.
0
0
Voting to remain may be an act of parliament but you are missing the point I was making - even if it is Parliament's will to kill parliamentary sovereignty, that doesn't make it any less dead.
0
0
On that basis no deal shouldn't be on the ballot paper.
0
0
that’s fine by me
0
0
The biggest threat to parliamentary sovereignty is deciding to put things to a referendum in the first place. Ignoring the result would be parliament saying, "actually, we just remembered that we are sovereign and not you, and if you don't like it, feel free to express your feelings at the next general election".
This is parliamentary sovereignty.
It is perfectly possible for Parliament to vote to take us out of the EU. They voted to trigger Article 50, and to give themselves a meaningful vote on the deal negotiated. In order for the vote to be meaningful, they had to have the possibility of voting either for or against the deal. They voted against it, repeatedly. They then voted to force Theresa May to request an extension because they were not happy with the deal or with the prospect of crashing out without a deal. They made their intention to prevent no deal so clear to Boris Johnson that he has tried to shut down Parliament and take away their power, and what happened? They managed to pass legislation requiring him to request a further extension if a deal is not done by late October before being shut down, and simultaneously several of them took him to court to fight against their being shut down, and they might well win.
Brexit might have started off as a threat to parliamentary sovereignty (given the obvious conflict between representative and direct democracy), but right now parliamentary sovereignty appears to be more alive and kicking than it has been at any other point in my lifetime.
Saying that failing to leave the EU will mean that parliamentary sovereignty is dead is completely fooking absurd. If parliament were not sovereign, we'd have left by now.
0
0
Oi. I read the question. And answered it. Then I got into an argument.
0
0
Agree 100% with Anna.
Parliament ( current members - a GE might change that) and the electorate are at odds over Brexit.
Which is what has caused the impasse.
Leaving absolutely eg with no deal = electorate wins the day. It was an in/out ref, remember.
Leaving with Deal eg conditional leaving or Remaining = parliament wins the day
Although this business of our elected representatives being at odds with us is mental. And entirely what can happen if you run a referendum.
0
0
Please sign deal and leave. Thx
0
0
Of course both...
0
0
ahem, some of us actually RTFQ first time
0
0
Anna, you are completely missing the point and I am not sure whether you are doing it on purpose or are just dense. Parliament has been exercising its sovereignty in trying to override the result of the referendum, yes. Agreed. But the point about whether the EU is sovereign over Parliament has always been a bit of a fudge and the pretence has always been maintained that because we could leave the EU by an Act of Parliament, Parliament remains sovereign. If we get to the point where we acknowledge that actually it is not possible for us to leave because any deal would be unacceptable and no deal is so prohibitive as to amount to an impossibility, then the fig leaf is removed. You might not like that conclusion but I don't see how you avoid it.
0
0
It is a very complicated situation and hard to resolve.
Mrs May, Boris J, my remainer Tory MP and many others backed the perfectly acceptable withdrawal agreement but MPs have chosen not to three times and are the ones pushing us to no deal. MPs are hopelessly divided over this (as is the country).
0
0
Goose just because a club is so good we would be mad to leave it doesn’t mean we can’t . HTH
0
0
This would be really difficult for me.
I would prefer we stayed in but I very much fear my learned friend Mr Clubman is correct and staying now simply wouldn't work. I think on balance I would vote remain and cross my fingers but it's not a no brainer. Revoking article 50 would however, at worst, buy us to time to try and properly figure out what our ultimate departure should look like and negotiate it properly with the EU (without a no deal time bomb ticking).
I would answer the second question. If the 'deal' is TMPM's deal then I would vote no deal. If it was an NI only backstop then I would (reluctantly) vote deal.
0
0
If I voted purely in my own self interest I would answer both (1) Remain & (2) Deal.
If I voted in what I thought was the national interest then - what Clubber and Catters said.
0
0
This, FFS.
0
0
in what parallel universe is it in the national interest to leave with no deal?!!
0
0
May’s Withdrawal Agreement is leaving with no deal in the area that really matters: the long-term future relationship.
0
0
1. remain
2. deal
faod it is not in the national interest to leave just because a narrow majority voted to leave last time
it is in the national interest to remain
0
0
So that people's faith in democracy is restored, apparently.
As long as THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is done, nobody will mind that it looks nothing like what they were promised before the referendum or that their mum's cancer treatment has been cancelled because they can't get the radioactive isotopes.
0
0
I'm fairly sure that people on the breadline who can't afford to absorb food price rises or who rely on imported medicine with a short lifespan would be of the view that the immediate short term also "really matters".
0
0
Kimmy - I would vote leave with a deal.
Remain is not an unambiguously good outcome. It will leave millions feeling disenfranchised and alienated - with unknowable but certainly not good results. UK will be left humiliated as an unwelcome member of the EU club, having been unable to leave, and this would have unwelcome electoral consequences across Europe. On balance, and accepting the negative economic consequences, I think the best option at this point is to leave with a deal but if a deal is not possible then to leave without.
0
0
But do you really think leave voters will be happy with the outcome?
0
0
Happier than they'd be if their vote was ignored, yes. They'd also own the economic consequences, so people like Laz could jump up and down pointing and laughing when Nissan closes.
0
0
I'm not sure I agree. Having your vote respected doesn't keep you employed or pay to put food on the table or supply you with life saving medication.
I don't think they will own the consequences of their vote. They will be wailing (with some justification), "This isn't what we were promised!"
0
0
Tun!
0
0
Because the short-term matters should be, well, short-term, leavers could agree to the one-off cost or a finite transition period, with only a grumble.
The problem with May’s Withdrawal Agreement is that it isn’t about Withdrawal, short-term measures and a finite time-limited transition. It locks the U.K. into the EU Customs Union and Single Market forever.
0
0
Not so short term if you die as a consequence due to lack of insulin or people kicking off about the Irish border.
Join the discussion