Brexit.

[Sid]

The reasoning behind a second referendum is that a considerable number of MPs (Conservative and Labour both) are worried about the electoral consequences for them personally if they vote to stop Brexit, so they think they need the plausible cover provided by a second referendum (assuming it ends in a Remain vote).

Perhaps they can justly be condemned for their self-serving attitude, but that doesn't seem to worry them so much as does the danger of incurring the wrath of some of their local electorate and (in the case of the Conservatives, their local Conservative Association).

I can see that there are forces in the UK who want another referendum. If I lived there, I would be in that camp too.
But why would the EU require a referendum?
The EU is only interested what the UK parliament and government want. They can not interfere with internal procedures in the UK.
So I think that that article in the newspapers Arkady referred to, is just EU bashing bogus from that (those) paper(s).

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I can see that there are forces in the UK who want another referendum. If I lived there, I would be in that camp too.
But why would the EU require a referendum?
The EU is only interested what the UK parliament and government want. They can not interfere with internal procedures in the UK.
So I think that that article in the newspapers Arkady referred to, is just EU bashing bogus from that (those) paper(s).

It's news to me that the EU have any such view. A quick poke around Google tells me that the Czech Prime Minister told Theresa May last week he thinks she ought to hold one, but that's all I can find.

The EU have said they'd require a valid reason for agreeing to a long delay, and I imagine they'd probably accept "we need a long delay to give us time to hold a second referendum" was an adequate reason, but I don't think they've said anything more.

 

[Kara Spengler]

The hilariously tragic thing underlying this current deadlock is that it could all be solved quite readily by a new referendum - but the Brexit Taliban can't abide the idea, knowing full well the original result was fraudulent (overspending and funny money), and that as Leave voters strongly lent toward being older, a new referendum will see some of them no longer with us, and conversely, plenty of 16 & 17 year olds then now being eligible to vote, not to mention some Leavers finally realising so much of what they were told - £350m for the NHS, lower immigration - were lies. Of course, there are Labour MPs similarly unwilling, having bought into the canard of "but my constituents voted for it!", as if that stops the likes of Steven Baker from not only defying his voters, but cheerleading the process.

From what I've read, the People's Vote brigade deliberately haven't moved yet, feeling they've only got one shot at this, and need - unfortunately - to wait until the last minute. Does anyone have insight into what they're hoping to bring about first? I'm guessing that'll be after the march next Saturday.

Yes, I doubt they want anyone looking into it too closely. I was watching one thing questioning if Farange and others were shorting the pound on inside information (illegal) when the polls were closing.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Interesting and somewhat alarming thread by a very senior British lawyer about the dangers of going for a short delay rather than a long one.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Tigger]

Led by donkeys, we salute you!

 

[Ariane]

Interesting and somewhat alarming thread by a very senior British lawyer about the dangers of going for a short delay rather than a long one.

So this means that a vote for the negotiated agreement is basically a vote for No Deal making the NA effectively dead.

Assuming it fails for a third time because of this, and Europe still insists on a reason for delay, a Second Referendum might be the only option to avoid No Deal.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

So this means that a vote for the negotiated agreement is basically a vote for No Deal making the NA effectively dead.

Assuming it fails for a third time because of this, and Europe still insists on a reason for delay, a Second Referendum might be the only option to avoid No Deal.

Alternatively, Theresa May could well hope Labour would be forced to cooperate in allowing the WA to go through if the alternative really is no deal.

That's the other possibility, and I suppose there is no reason to imagine the EU27 would be unhappy to see that happen -- they're content with the WA, after all.

Or if Labour refused to budge, TM might find herself forced to revoke the A50 notification rather than crash out.

It's all a huge gamble. I will feel a lot safer if the WA gets voted down this week and she has to ask for a long delay (possibly in order to organise a referendum on WA or remain).

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm very much hoping Kyle's correct - whilst I can see the logic behind first defining the deal which would be voted on, I feel that's somewhat irrelevant (you don't need to know what car you'll rent on vacation before you plan for it), as well as going to remain difficult to pass without this very kind of voter approval. Are there enough Tories willing to let the plebs have a say? Hopefully. Gods, I hope so.

Of course, even with a PV coming, that doesn't mean this wretched folly will just yet be laid to rest, but hopefully the Remainers will be able to ram home all the lies and deceptions that were wagered, along with those prize quotes selected by Led By Donkeys, as well as doing everything to ensure as many of the new voters do turn out.

Someone's been listening to me!

Well, not to me personally, but this is what a lot of Labour Remain supporters have been arguing is the most likely way we're going to get a second referendum. Not sure about the timing, but the Labour whips know the numbers better than do I.

 

[Free]

Ahem.

 

[Kara Spengler]

Ahem.

In his mind it was cunning too. It never was but at least he put some thought into the best one he could come up with.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

I may be misreading that (some beer and very good cider is, happily, involved), but - the language only speaks of approving a WA. There seems to be rather a lot of wiggle room as to what the ballot would be.. "May: yes or no" is, of course, rather different to "May or Remain". Is this a deliberate can kicking?

 

[Porsupah Ree]

In his mind it was cunning too. It never was but at least he put some thought into the best one he could come up with.

Oh, there was a cunning plan!

'Malthouse Compromise' on Brexit not dead: UK lawmaker after PM May talks | Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - A eurosceptic British lawmaker said the “Malthouse Compromise” - an attempt to redraft the contentious Irish backstop in the Brexit deal - was “alive and kicking” after a meeting with Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday.

Reports had said May’s government would not pursue the proposal, which had been championed by some Conservative lawmakers, in talks with the European Union.

Steve Baker, a member of a euroskeptic group in May’s ruling Conservative Party, said: “The Malthouse Compromise is alive and kicking. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU can provide details. We look forward to further developments.”

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I may be misreading that (some beer and very good cider is, happily, involved), but - the language only speaks of approving a WA. There seems to be rather a lot of wiggle room as to what the ballot would be.. "May: yes or no" is, of course, rather different to "May or Remain". Is this a deliberate can kicking?

One step at a time. Once we've agreed to a second referendum, we can argue later about what questions should be on the ballot (and who the electorate should be).

Withdrawal Agreement vs Remain are the only options that make sense but that's an argument for another day. Let's get the referendum agreed first.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

One step at a time. Once we've agreed to a second referendum, we can argue later about what questions should be on the ballot (and who the electorate should be).

Withdrawal Agreement vs Remain are the only options that make sense but that's an argument for another day. Let's get the referendum agreed first.

Inasmuch as it'd be a plausible way forward for a 21-month extension on A50, it'd suffice, even if it's easy to foresee the isolationists happy to push for a yes/no on May only.

 

[Ariane]

I think it HAS to be WA vs Remain. If it is Remain or No Deal, it is extremely risky, and if it is Remain or Not Remain, it opens the door to the same manipulative arguments used in the first referendum.

The only other viable option would be Remain, or Leave but stay in Customs Union/Open Borders (Norway Model).

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Somewhere along the line the acronym WA has morphed in my mind into Wanking Arrangement.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Somewhere along the line the acronym WA has morphed in my mind into Wanking Arrangement.

But does the BBC Charter provide for BBC Parliament to become a PPV channel?

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I think it HAS to be WA vs Remain. If it is Remain or No Deal, it is extremely risky, and if it is Remain or Not Remain, it opens the door to the same manipulative arguments used in the first referendum.

The only other viable option would be Remain, or Leave but stay in Customs Union/Open Borders (Norway Model).

I can't imagine Accept vs Reject. The WA would be rejected and we'd be back where we started. And Parliament would not, I am sure, agree to WA vs No Deal. That would suicidal.

WA vs Remain is the only logical question but, as I said, that's an argument to be had after we've agreed to have another referendum in the first place.

 

[detrius]

You can put all three options on the table - just use some form of ranked choice voting.