OV9

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:09 am Okiedokes, let me know when the fucking insanity comes to an end then please. Bye for now.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:11 am 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?

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:08 am Impressive negotiating from Corbyn.

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

...Option not removed...

“We are prepared to meet...”

Richard wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:03 am

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:58 am 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

Richard wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:11 pm I’m merely wondering out loud, how long the referendum is going to be #TheWillOfThePeople for? 2 years? 4? 10? 100?

GG. wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:15 am 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.

GG. wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:38 pm 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 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:40 pm 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.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:04 pm But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.

Rich B wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:04 pm But there aren’t 2-3 clear choices to vote for. Just a mess of unresolved plans that no one can agree on.