So we either need a new government, who might try soft Brexit, or revoke, and/or a new Parliament which will change up the numbers. 

Or we might get a Boris/Brexit Party government which takes us crashing out of the EU with no deal on a combined 30% of the vote.

That's why the other parties are resisting a general election right now.

Honestly even if Boris finds a Parliamentary majority for NI-only or no deal I would accept it as it would be constitutional. 

A parliamentary majority does not equal a majority of votes though.

What Bright Carves said. 

She comes across as a Sixth Form Deputy Head Girl swot who's got to play lead as Lib Dem leader in the end of year play.

A parliamentary majority does not equal a majority of votes though.

I know, Lady P, but we can’t govern by referenda either. 

The system is what it is - I would be up for changing it but that is never going to happen with Brexit hanging over everything (or for many years after I imagine). So we need to work with what we have. 

Or we might get a Boris/Brexit Party government which takes us crashing out of the EU with no deal on a combined 30% of the vote.

I mean, we could, but I find it hard to believe a party that’s been governing for 10 years and is on its third PM increases its majority in a GE (leaving aside austerity & Brexit). But anything’s possible these days. 

But if the position of the Labour Party, Lib Dems, SNP etc is that no deal is (a) not an acceptable outcome and (b) not the will of the people (both of which I agree with FAOD) it's too risky to agree to a general election which might result in a party with a clear minority of the vote winning an outright parliamentary majority and taking us out of the EU with no deal.

As things stand the opposition parties have the numbers to stop the no deal brigade. After a general election they might not, even if a majority of voters vote for parties other than BlueKIP or NewKIP. 

A referendum is the only way out of this. 

I guess I don’t see the greater risk in an election - everyone thought May would get a majority for her hard Brexit plan and she lost her majority. Are there enough MPs committed to no deal that will be elected to give Boris a majority for it when it comes down to the vote?

I think a referendum is a far greater risk. A 47% Leave loss would exercise the anger of all the (former) 52% - and of course there’s always the risk Remain loses again. 

There is risk in both but if you have a referendum with no deal on the ballot paper, at least you only end up with no deal if a majority specifically vote for it, which I don't think they would. With a general election you could end up with no deal even though a clear majority have voted against it.

And fundamentally, the problem with first past the post is that some people's votes are very powerful whereas others are worth fook all. That's difficult enough to tolerate in general elections but in a referendum on a single issue there is absolutely no democratic justification for it. 

Going back to the OP:

Perhaps this cancel Brexit stance is merely a negotiating position.

A GE results in a hung parliament and she is king maker. Yes yes we’ve been here before and she said she wont do deals but c’mon, what else is she going to do? Her cancel Brexit gets negotiated down to second ref possibly with her setting the options on a ballot paper.

v basic analysis I know but clutching at straws again now....I have no other voting options, I need to make a case for LibDem.

 I have another question, for the Constitutional hedz:

what is the process for cancelling brexit?

1. Revoke Art 50 - this would need vote in Parliament presumably? It was ofc served in first place following Parliamentary consensus.

But

2. The Ref Act, it stated the outcome of the ref is advisory, didnt it, would that mean it can be just shelved without parliamentary debate?

what is the legal position for ditching brexit, please?

Yes ofc it’s a negotiating position, she’s not completely stupid. 

The risk though, and it’s a big one, is instead of keeping it back for the campaign, it’s out there now and will be used by the oppo parties to beat her with, losing the LDs votes.

Hence it being seen as inept. Which she now looks. Badly. 

not read the thread.

But the LDs were second, ahead of labour, in a poll last night

unsurprising as Lab is dunno really now re brexit.

Laz please remind us what bien pensant Lab goes with these days, I’ve lost count of the flip flops.

This is the thing. The time for sitting on the fence is long past. If Keir Starmer were the Labour leader I would vote for them, but since it's Corbyn I will continue to vote Lib Dem even though I disagree with this latest approach.

Minkie, in Miller, the UK Supreme Court ruled that invocation of Art 50 required an Act of Parliament.  I think that they also implied, or credible authorities have inferred, that revocation would also.

The ECJ made clear that under European law the UK can unilaterally revoke Art. 50.  However this was qualified by saying that the member states revocation has to have followed the member states own requirements (see above), and the revocation has to be unequivocal.  It's not clear to me that in the current circumstances they would accept a UK revocation as being unequivocal, as it would be subject to judicial review, repeal after a General Election or referendum etc etc etc. Even worse if it was coerced out of a Prime Minister who clearly doesn't support it.   Would you want such a member in your club?

right, so it’s all grandstanding then, Elffi

if in the unlikely event lib dem won a GE outright and then revoke Art 50 came before the house there’d be a riot. Although if we’re dealing in hypotheticals who knows what the House might consist of in the alternative universe of Lib Dem winning an election.

* head explodes*

If they won a GE outright, they would have a majority in the House of Commons and could vote through what they like.

The House of Lords is a different kettle of fish.

However, under the Salisbury Convention the House of Lords would not hold up to legislation passed in the Commons, if the legislation was a manifesto commitment.

I have always believed that the Salisbury Convention is the reason that May called the 2017 election, not to increase her majority in the Commons, but to pressurise the Lords.  That she ran an appalling campaign is a completely separate issue; there was a clear and compelling case for an election at that time.

Having said that the Salisbury Convention is just that - a convention, and the Lords might not keep to it. But which party is it that wants to abolish the House of Lords?

I think the only thing you can do is vote tactically.

My Labour MP has such a huge majority that an LD vote is wasted, but she's gone from 'we will leave but stay in SM/CU' to supporting second ref and is anti no-deal, so I will vote Labour.

Although my worry is that she's not generally a rebel and if Corbyn decides to go for some nutter position she will follow the whip

I don't ethically have a problem with the LD revoke position, it's just all a bit pointless to vote for it where I live.

PS I am told by different Labour party and journo mates that Starmer is not a popular choice for leader as he is 'too much of a lawyer and not a proper politician' (!)

not like they've got a wealth of good candidates though, is it?!

If you want a referendum doing anything but voting tactically for Lab/LD/SNP/PC is simply stupid.

Lib Dems will NOT win an outright majority Labour will NOT win an outright majority.  Our only hope is electing a majority of pro-referendum MPs in the next parliament who will cobble together a working government long enough to hold a referendum.  

This makes Swinsons comments about not working with Corbyn all the more unfortunate and self-defeating.    

What should happen, and what actually could happen if people put party interests aside is that the remain MPs agree to a corbyn-led government to last for 6 months to hold a referendum on basis of In or Mays deal to be followed immediately by implementation and a general election.  Realistically this is remainer MPs best hope for what will happen AFTER the election so they may as well do it now. 

If you want a referendum doing anything but voting tactically for Lab/LD/SNP/PC is simply stupid.

Lib Dems will NOT win an outright majority Labour will NOT win an outright majority.  Our only hope is electing a majority of pro-referendum MPs in the next parliament who will cobble together a working government long enough to hold a referendum.  

This makes Swinsons comments about not working with Corbyn all the more unfortunate and self-defeating.    

What should happen, and what actually could happen if people put party interests aside is that the remain MPs agree to a corbyn-led government to last for 6 months to hold a referendum on basis of In or Mays deal to be followed immediately by implementation and a general election.  Realistically this is remainer MPs best hope for what will happen AFTER the election so they may as well do it now. 

"This makes Swinsons comments about not working with Corbyn all the more unfortunate and self-defeating."

agreed, that totally pissed me off

we do need the fooking grown ups to get together and compromise