Bye bye Theresa

[JLv3.0]

Okiedokes, let me know when the fucking insanity comes to an end then please. Bye for now.

[Rich B]

Okiedokes, let me know when the fucking insanity comes to an end then please. Bye for now.

there’s an end??!!!

[JLv3.0]

Oh there has to be - it's so clearly such a fucking abortion of a clusterfuck that at some point, someone has to go "guys - that's enough. Just forget it yeah. Move on."

Right?

[Richard]

Oh there has to be - it's so clearly such a fucking abortion of a clusterfuck that at some point, someone has to go "guys - that's enough. Just forget it yeah. Move on."

Right?

I’m pretty sure that’s the plan

[JLv3.0]

OK that's reassuring. I guess they'll all tire of it at some point anyway, seeing as no-one really knows what they're all arguing for (or against). Can't be much longer now.

[Simon]

Impressive negotiating from Corbyn.

“No talks until no deal is off the table.”

...Option not removed...

“We are prepared to meet...”

Also not understanding that unless something big changes, then no-deal is the default course of action on March 29th. You can't just rule it out, you have to propose (and vote for) an alternative.

[JonathanE]

So have they admitted it's all fucking bollocks and let it die away yet?

It’s not bollocks, it’s the will of the people.

That vote, 2 years ago, reflects the view of everyone, then, now and for the rest of time, irrespective of new thoughts, facts, a new generation of voters coming of age and another dying of old age.

HARD BREXIT NOW

Etc

I certainly agree that there are new thought and facts, but I don't think the mere passage of time helps the argument for a second referendum. Yes, there are some new young voters, and some old voters have died. But if your premise is that the original Brexit voting was correlated with age (which is debatable), this implies that people stop being pro-Remain and start being pro-Leave at an average age of say 50. So unless the overall demographic has changed, some of the then 48-50 year olds who voted Remain last time would now vote leave, offsetting the effects of there being some new 18-20 year olds and some deaths. In other words, the effect of time passing would be neutral, all other things being equal. The strongest argument for a second referendum isn't this one.

Jonathan

[Ascender]

I genuinely have no idea what is going on now so have given up worrying about it.

What utterly blows my mind is that a group of adults who we've entrusted to run the country let that country's population vote to do "something" without knowing exactly what the consequences of that "something" would be, let alone under what conditions we would then do that "something".

I mean, honestly, how were they even allowed to hold that vote without some provision which said there would then be a follow up vote once we knew the conditions. I have to agree to the T&Cs before I can download a movie from iTunes. Has nobody in the government bought anything from iTunes ever? Or you know, stuff like maybe a car or a house?

My mind is blown about that one point when I should be stocking up for the impending apocalypse.

[Rich B]

I think it came down to massive arrogance, I don’t think any of them ever thought leave would win.

As for the rest of the process, it would be nice to believe that they were all working towards the best solution possible,’ for the country they represent, but the reality is they’re all treating it as opportunities to further their own careers.

[Richard]

I’m merely wondering out loud, how long the referendum is going to be #TheWillOfThePeople for? 2 years? 4? 10? 100?

[GG.]

Of course the flip side argument applies equally well with regard to Major forcing Maastricht through the HoC without a referendum as per 1973. Did he really have any grasp of what the long term consequences would be (both in facilitating European integrationists and not taking the people of Britain along with him)? Highly unlikely.

Vernon Bogdanor, a noted constitutional law professor at Oxford, wrote at the time that the position that the ratification of Maastricht without reference to the people was in accordance with the UK constitution was in reality "highly dubious", noting that there was a "clear constitutional rationale for requiring a referendum" in such a case of a transfer of powers.

Relevant article below:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wh ... 90346.html

[GG.]

I’m merely wondering out loud, how long the referendum is going to be #TheWillOfThePeople for? 2 years? 4? 10? 100?

43 years would be fair. Equal and reciprocal courtesy and all that.

[Jobbo]

This argument that she should not "double-cross" the EU on an agreed deal inescapably means that your opinion is that she should just keep going back to the house with the same deal and trying to get it to pass. You're essentially advising Theresa May to be more like Theresa May rather than making any attempt to build a consensus around a deal! I don't understand that at all I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, no independent country will ever sign up to a treaty it cannot get out of without breaching international law, whatever the context. It is completely perverse to immediately bring about the conditions they are trying to avoid by turning their face against say, a 2 year exit clause from the backstop which gives them 2 years of transition and two years of backstop to sign up a deal and avoid dealing with the border issue. In reality they are refusing to offer this, not because it doesn't make sense - they are refusing because they know that others in the EU27 will want to reopen other issues and/or they will see it as a concession and resultingly will not be able to get it ratified by the EU27 and parliament.

Perversely, much like Varadkar, in outmanouvering May and baking into the agreement a silly position which would never in reality be agreed, they've made any sensible compromise look like capitulation. Any good lawyer would realise that you cannot, in real life, engineer out all possible risk from a deal. You have to build in mechanics which go as far as they can to allay such risk whilst remaining acceptable to both sides - this pragmatic principle seem to have completely bypassed them.

May keeps putting herself in a position of taking an impossible deal to the other side; she was there with the draft Withdrawal Agreement she brought back from Brussels and she's there again now with what she's taking back to the EU, notwithstanding the success of yesterday's votes. This is the idiocy of her position; she doesn't actually achieve anything except making herself look like she blows in the wind without any forethought.

The backstop which was so difficult for us to swallow was an inevitable consequence of her own red lines; which were of course:
- respecting the Good Friday Agreement, meaning no hard border within the island of Ireland
- no borders within the UK, meaning no customs post in the Irish Sea
- the UK leaving the customs union and single market

Eny fule kan sea that these are mutually exclusive and the backstop was the only fudge which managed to accommodate them. There is no better plan (there is no plan at all to go back to the EU with, by all accounts).

As for Major and Maastricht, I take it you don't remember the massive protests and political divide within the Tory party which was created between the Europhiles and Eurosceptics? He was well aware but he didn't abdicate responsibility like that lily-livered Cameron. You yourself have posted a contemporaneous mainstream newspaper article on the subject. It wasn't hidden from the public!

[Jobbo]

Two things I hadn't realised when reading that article:
- Vernon Bogdanor taught Cameron at Oxford.
- He (VB) advocates a second referendum: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... on-dilemma - do you agree with him on this point too?

[GG.]

He isn't saying that a second ref is the only option compliant with the constitution is he? He's saying that's his preferred outcome from a policy rather than constitutional law perspective. I was referencing his opinion on a point of law. DAG for example is not often legally wrong, but I disagree with a lot of his political positions.

In theory i'm not against a second referendum but two points mitigate against it - 1) having one after you've botched negotiations creates an element of moral hazard unless you take "remain" off the table and are not effectively re-running the first ref. Then you'd be faced with May's unamended deal or no-deal - both unsatisfactory, but at least that avoids the reprehensible approach of "let's keep asking till we get the right answer". 2) It isn't, at this point, a practical possibility unless the stars align, you get the 27 to delay Brexit for possibly the best part of a year with the promise that the decision might go the other way... it in effect drives the country into the jaws of no-deal, with no incentive for the EU to revisit their current offer on the backstop (well, even less inclination than they're showing so far), whilst bickering over the formulation of what the question would be in the first place.

VB's example of New Zealand electoral reform is the best argument for one, but its far, far too late for that now (note than the VB article you reference is mid-'18).

If I were to bet on what happens from here on in - I would say the EU probably gives us nothing, or little more than another fig leaf such as the exchange of letters at the tail end of last year (particularly now the illegally elected Selmayr is supposedly angling to take charge of negotiations) and parliament sucks it up and votes for the deal on the next vote in mid-Feb to avoid no deal.

[DeskJockey]

He isn't saying that a second ref is the only option compliant with the constitution is he? He's saying that's his preferred outcome from a policy rather than constitutional law perspective. I was referencing his opinion on a point of law. DAG for example is not often legally wrong, but I disagree with a lot of his political positions.

In theory i'm not against a second referendum but two points mitigate against it - 1) having one after you've botched negotiations creates an element of moral hazard unless you take "remain" off the table and are not effectively re-running the first ref. Then you'd be faced with May's unamended deal or no-deal - both unsatisfactory, but at least that avoids the reprehensible approach of "let's keep asking till we get the right answer". 2) It isn't, at this point, a practical possibility unless the stars align, you get the 27 to delay Brexit for possibly the best part of a year with the promise that the decision might go the other way... it in effect drives the country into the jaws of no-deal, with no incentive for the EU to revisit their current offer on the backstop (well, even less inclination than they're showing so far), whilst bickering over the formulation of what the question would be in the first place.

VB's example of New Zealand electoral reform is the best argument for one, but its far, far too late for that now (note than the VB article you reference is mid-'18).

If I were to bet on what happens from here on in - I would say the EU probably gives us nothing, or little more than another fig leaf such as the exchange of letters at the tail end of last year (particularly now the illegally elected Selmayr is supposedly angling to take charge of negotiations) and parliament sucks it up and votes for the deal on the next vote in mid-Feb to avoid no deal.

It wouldn't be rerunning the first referendum, it would be giving people an option to change their minds based on what they now know. That's fair. Giving them the option between a bad deal and crashing out (no matter what they say no-deal is anything but. "No deal" means both parties walk away unchanged, that's not what's on the table here), isn't fair on either side.

[dinny_g]

It wouldn't be rerunning the first referendum, it would be giving people an option to change their minds based on what they now know. That's fair. Giving them the option between a bad deal and crashing out (no matter what they say no-deal is anything but. "No deal" means both parties walk away unchanged, that's not what's on the table here), isn't fair on either side.

Good point DJ - I voted Leave first time out but I don't think I would again - not because I don't want to leave but because I don't think we can.

[Rich B]

But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

[NotoriousREV]

But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

Disagree. Each plan is completely defined. The consequences of each less so...

[DeskJockey]

But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

And that is what people have to decide their stance on. In the light of what the last two years have shown and what has been achieved, what do you want to do?