Bye bye Theresa

[dinny_g]

Best option now is to revoke, since there's no positive majority in favour of anything. Keeping the status quo could be the answer.

This..

[Swervin_Mervin]

There is no status quo. Never has and certainly isn't now we've utterly torpedoed our already historically fractious relationship with them. Nor will it bring the country or politics back together.

[GG.]

Here comes 2000 words from GG

It doesn't need 2000 words... 500 is probably fine

I have sympathy for revoke as a strategy but not as an end outcome. To say "we stuffed up the process so therefore you cannot have what you voted for" is unacceptable moral hazard. I'm more in favour of no deal and the politicians owning the resultant problems than I am allowing them to reverse ferret on the whole thing.

The problem with revoke as a strategy is that the CJEU have determined that you cant invoke again as that would be seen as manipulation so you'd have to have another referendum and then you're back at square one: throwing your own fuck up back to the people and frightening them into voting differenty (John Curtice has written an interesting article on the country not having changed its mind on Europe but may vote remain - there is a distinction between the two).

You also have to deal with the question that MPs have voted against this precise option so there won't be a majority in parliament for doing that.

[GG.]

There is no status quo. Never has and certainly isn't now we've utterly torpedoed our already historically fractious relationship with them. Nor will it bring the country or politics back together.

This. Surely just the last 24 hours of publicity around the EU copyright directive and mandatory EU speed limiters means this should've sunk in but clearly not.

[JLv3.0]

So the country is in pieces, we're the laughing stock of the world and there is no going back.

What are the upsides again? Blue passports or something?

Totally worth it.

edit - no seriously for a second, if it's sovereignty - may I present to you.............Brexit. I wouldn't trust those stupid cunts to operate a light switch.

[DeskJockey]

Best option now is to revoke, since there's no positive majority in favour of anything. Keeping the status quo could be the answer.

This..

This. Status quo defined as "not leaving". We could then have an election on the topic of getting politicians that would take EU membership seriously and start to exert influence from within, rather than riding the gravy train while pretending they're making a difference.

[GG.]

The best answer to all of this is the conclusion the supposed "Brexit delivery" grouping in the commons have come to. Brexit needs to happen, in whatever form that may be. They need to work out which is the least opposed option is and go with that (customs union or whatever). Clearly the greater the number of facets of a true Brexit that has (end to CAP, CFP, free movement, ECJ supremacy) the better but it should be apparent to everyone now that there needs to be some compromise to get this over the line if they cannot accept the backstop/TM's Withdrawal Agreement.

The difficulty is one of procedure so, as I set out above, the house should vote to adopt a mechanism to allow them to go with the least worst option rather than the one that gains >50% of the votes. It should be stressed that No Deal is the default and if they fail to implement that change to the procedure of the house then No Deal it is.

The practical issue is that much as people like spouting off about the legislature keeping the executive in check - parliament in itself is like a headless chicken - it needs the direction of the executive to function and we therefore need Theresa May to get on and do MV3, accept the deal is dead and then push for the house to adopt the procedural change noted above.

[GG.]

Best option now is to revoke, since there's no positive majority in favour of anything. Keeping the status quo could be the answer.

This..

This. Status quo defined as "not leaving". We could then have an election on the topic of getting politicians that would take EU membership seriously and start to exert influence from within, rather than riding the gravy train while pretending they're making a difference.

Unfortunately the 'exert influence from within' has and always will be a bullshit argument and has been proven wrong time and time again. The structure of the EU is such that you cannot as an individual member assert enough influence to repatriate rights if you're obtaining them for your own benefit and not those of the majority. You will always be outvoted.

You will be dragged along with the majority kicking and screaming whether you like it or not. The Commission knows this - they've said as much. If you are at one with the philosophy of further intergration and harmonisation among member states then you will get your way. The UK has never been in favour of this so saying "exert your influence" to stop it happening is merely shouting at clouds. Cameron's one service to the nation was to humiliate himself proving this exact point.

[DeskJockey]

I've not suggested what we should try to influence. My point is that Britain could play a much bigger and more important part in the EU if it wanted to do so.

You're right the rest wouldn't stand for Britain (or anyone else I suspect) trying to have the cake and eat it, but there are other options and ways.

It does require that it is taken seriously.

And to quote Jobbo: "better to be on the inside pissing out..."

[GG.]

My point is that Britain could play a much bigger and more important part in the EU if it wanted to do so.

This is the point. The UK does not want (and never has wanted) to do that. You're basically saying - come on lads forget all your previous opinions on the matter, accept you lost and throw yourselves into it. Be like France and Germany - be part of that majority and then try and influence the majority position.

It just isn't realistic and it isn't acceptable to the majority of the British public, hence the referendum went the way it did.

[JonMad]

What's the DUP's position on No Deal? Given they are anti May's Deal and no other option has any favour (including Revoke)?

Still interested on whether the DUP think No Deal is better than May's Deal, in terms of the Irish Border. GG?

[dinny_g]

My point is that Britain could play a much bigger and more important part in the EU if it wanted to do so.

This is the point. The UK does not want (and never has wanted) to do that. You're basically saying - come on lads forget all your previous opinions on the matter, accept you lost and throw yourselves into it. Be like France and Germany - be part of that majority and then try and influence the majority position.

It just isn't realistic and it isn't acceptable to the majority of the British public, hence the referendum went the way it did.

Doesn't the referendum result cast doubt on that view - it would now appear that almost 50% of those who voted are kinda liking the idea of Greater Political Integration and "being like France and Germany"...

[GG.]

You can infer that everyone that voted leave does not want integration. As you've seen from the erroneous comment above regarding going back to the status quo ante, it is a logical fallacy to say you can infer that all pro remain votes are for further integration as clearly many are for the unicorn position of remain but no change.

[GG.]

What's the DUP's position on No Deal? Given they are anti May's Deal and no other option has any favour (including Revoke)?

Still interested on whether the DUP think No Deal is better than May's Deal, in terms of the Irish Border. GG?

Its a good question isn't it. I believe their logical consistency (as noted above as "unionism above all else") means if it is WA or no deal they'd go no deal. Worse in various ways for NI but doesn't damage the union per se.

That's not to say they wouldn't vote for alternatives in preference to no deal. In that respect they're aligned with the majority of the Westminster parliament.

[dinny_g]

I think I get your point GG... I know in life, you get paid by the word but.. well...

Based on the views expressed here, I''ve assumed that all those who voted leave were Bigoted, knuckle dragging Morons whereas those who voted Remain were the intellectual elite.

If you're suggesting that some of the Remain voters chose remain in expectation of an EU that will never come to pass then I don't know what to think anymore...

Other than No Deal Exit...

[JonMad]

Also, will it come down to Bercow allowing MV3 or not, as to whether we end up leaving with no deal? (on the assumption that MV3 *might* pass now, given nobody wants, or at least expressed a majority, for anything else). Maybe they have to offer the current deal plus a confirmatory referendum to get it past Bercow as a 'substantial change'.

[GG.]

I think I get your point GG... I know in life, you get paid by the word but.. well...

Based on the views expressed here, I''ve assumed that all those who voted leave were Bigoted, knuckle dragging Morons whereas those who voted Remain were the intellectual elite.

If you're suggesting that some of the Remain voters chose remain in expectation of an EU that will never come to pass then I don't know what to think anymore...

Other than No Deal Exit...

Attributing characteristics to people who voted a certain way usually says much more about the person doing the attributing than anything else.

There are extremely intelligent people on both side of the debate. You'd be a fool to think that you could have 17.4 million people vote for something without it including a sizeable cohort of people of all stripes.

Just because socialist governments have historically been elected by a larger percentage of those with lower standards of education or less successful in life (social classes C2, D, E, no tertiary education), for example, does not mean that the political viewpoints they're voting for are automatically wrong, or in fact, says anything about the logical or intellectual legitimacy of the arguments made by that party.

[DeskJockey]

My point is that Britain could play a much bigger and more important part in the EU if it wanted to do so.

This is the point. The UK does not want (and never has wanted) to do that. You're basically saying - come on lads forget all your previous opinions on the matter, accept you lost and throw yourselves into it. Be like France and Germany - be part of that majority and then try and influence the majority position.

It just isn't realistic and it isn't acceptable to the majority of the British public, hence the referendum went the way it did.

No, what I'm saying is that as nobody can agree about what leaving should look like, and there is a significant popular demand for another vote, maybe it is time to put it to the people again, but this time on a platform of "let's try to improve the EU" so that everybody gains. If leave wins again, then there is a further referendum on whether Britain crashes out or takes the deal already on the table.

[GG.]

Also, will it come down to Bercow allowing MV3 or not, as to whether we end up leaving with no deal? (on the assumption that MV3 *might* pass now, given nobody wants, or at least expressed a majority, for anything else). Maybe they have to offer the current deal plus a confirmatory referendum to get it past Bercow as a 'substantial change'.

Confirmatory ref torpedoes it as a way out of the mess however as it would require a second, longer extension and participation in EU parliamentary elections.

The council may not accept a proposal that leaves no deal on the table in the event the public rejects the WA and remainers will fight tooth and nail for the option of remain, which means that a confirmatory referendum on the deal is not likely to get past parliament (indeed it has already been voted against in indicative votes).

[GG.]

My point is that Britain could play a much bigger and more important part in the EU if it wanted to do so.

This is the point. The UK does not want (and never has wanted) to do that. You're basically saying - come on lads forget all your previous opinions on the matter, accept you lost and throw yourselves into it. Be like France and Germany - be part of that majority and then try and influence the majority position.

It just isn't realistic and it isn't acceptable to the majority of the British public, hence the referendum went the way it did.

No, what I'm saying is that as nobody can agree about what leaving should look like, and there is a significant popular demand for another vote, maybe it is time to put it to the people again, but this time on a platform of "let's try to improve the EU" so that everybody gains. If leave wins again, then there is a further referendum on whether Britain crashes out or takes the deal already on the table.

You're offering them a unicorn that you can't deliver in "improving the EU".

If you're saying something that would be within your control, i.e. its (i) leave or (ii) remain... but further integrate and harmonise beyond what we had before, give up our opt outs, etc. in the hope that makes us "inside" the pro EU club and gains us influence, you'd be in for an absolute hiding.