Or nothing should change unless a threshold is reached which should of been the case in original vote. 66% will do as you mention it SE9.
Agreed - a number of 50% to win the original vote was silly, potentially lowering that number to 34% to win a second referendum is utter madness and would show we have learnt absolutely nothing.
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
It is extemely easy for us. We were the winning side in the referendum put to us. Over 600 MPs backed article 50 showing recognition of that vote We have a democratic process long admired by many across the globe. We have honoured our part in this process by casting our vote (many couldn't be bothered) We expect the government to implement the process of leaving the EU. We don't need to do anything.
I get it. Really I do. The problem will be when the government says you can have something, but it won't be brexit...the BINO option if you like, at it's most crass, issue blue passports and that's that. The winners will have won like that...sort of. Of course if the government says, we can't do it, or at least can't 'regain control of the borders', or can only do a brexit that means we don't participate in EU formal political business, yet we are cool about adhering to the EU rules, what then? I suppose the people then accept the government that they left to get on with it have done their best, and if the only change is on a par with blue passports, then the people will be happy. Is it really about 'the government' acting in any executive way they like, and everybody accepts what they have done or achieved...and this present governmental set up is the hand the country has been dealt? Surely the best thing is to remain and forget any of this even happened?
Personally, I think the negotiated deal or no deal options should be put to the public. The public should then vote to remain or go with the alternative. If this is done then at least there should be little doubt as to what the public have chosen.
Maybe the option to remain as before ought to be added to the two options you mention. The debate around and new vote of referendum will be horrendous.
I don’t think you could have a three option referendum, especially on this subject.
Why not?
The three options would be absolutely distinct (remain; go with the government's preferred option of a deal; go with the hard brexiteers' option of a no-deal). The three options cover everything. And, with a single transferable vote, we end up with a clear winner.
Fair, properly explained, definitive. And no-one (even remainers) could complain at the result: we are better informed than we were and the implications of each vote will be far better understood.
Neither Remain or Leave voters should fear it: if they firmly believe they have the will of the people on their side, and that close examination will demonstrate they're right, they should embrace it.
And it will be interesting to see whose political careers are ruined as a result.
So how do we decide which option wins?
We have a vote.
Right, hopefully you’ve thought this through a little more than that.
What, for instance, happens if we end up with a 33/33/34 split? We progress with an option that 66% of the country voted against in a referendum?
Did you read my post? A single, transferable vote would deliver a clear majority. It's a form of proportional representation. You choose a first preference and a second preference. If, on the first count, none of the three options gains a majority, you count second preference votes.
If the electorate is really split in the way you suggest (and I am aware that you just picked those numbers to illustrate a point), then whatever option is selected on our behalf by the government will be opposed by roughly two-thirds of the electorate. In this way, leaving it to the government guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people don't want.
Enabling a proportional representation vote, where each voters gets to choose his first and second preference guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people are either happy or comfortable with.
I believe that Remain would win on a first count and not even have to rely on second preferences (but I would - I am a remain supporter and I think enough people have learned more about the harm leaving will cause). But offering the three options to everyone, in a referendum that benefits from a better-informed and now rhetoric-averse electorate would be a good thing. Even if remain lost again - because it would mean we get the option most people want, instead of the option most people don't want.
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
I will say this one last time as I've had enough of repeating myself.
How & why is the "solution" down to the leave voters ?? Please tell me how I, as an individual, can do anything about how the UK leaves rhe UK ??? Do you want me to meet Michel Barnier and negotiate ?? Do you want me to go to Ireland & build a border ?? I am genuinely interested how you expect or want me to "own it" & to come up with a solution.
thank you.
If the solution is not down to the leave voters who is it down to? Those who voted remain?
down to the fecking Government !!! (whose leader voted to remain btw & is in charge of everything - so YOU can blame HER if it all goes wrong )
As mentioned several times now, a few times by me, Golfie. You can claim whatever eases your conscience, fact is you made a huge decision on behalf of, and with your fellow citizens without making yourself aware of the full implications, or choosing to ignore the implications when they were explained to you in places like Charlton Life and on the leaflet the government sent you advising you to vote remain. You ignored all that advice - and now you expect a government that gave you that advice to magically deliver all that you wish for, though you don't actually know what that is either.
I will forever blame you, you will forever blame someone (anyone) else.
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
It is extemely easy for us. We were the winning side in the referendum put to us. Over 600 MPs backed article 50 showing recognition of that vote We have a democratic process long admired by many across the globe. We have honoured our part in this process by casting our vote (many couldn't be bothered) We expect the government to implement the process of leaving the EU. We don't need to do anything.
I get it. Really I do. The problem will be when the government says you can have something, but it won't be brexit...the BINO option if you like, at it's most crass, issue blue passports and that's that. The winners will have won like that...sort of. Of course if the government says, we can't do it, or at least can't 'regain control of the borders', or can only do a brexit that means we don't participate in EU formal political business, yet we are cool about adhering to the EU rules, what then? I suppose the people then accept the government that they left to get on with it have done their best, and if the only change is on a par with blue passports, then the people will be happy. Is it really about 'the government' acting in any executive way they like, and everybody accepts what they have done or achieved...and this present governmental set up is the hand the country has been dealt? Surely the best thing is to remain and forget any of this even happened?
Personally, I think the negotiated deal or no deal options should be put to the public. The public should then vote to remain or go with the alternative. If this is done then at least there should be little doubt as to what the public have chosen.
Maybe the option to remain as before ought to be added to the two options you mention. The debate around and new vote of referendum will be horrendous.
I don’t think you could have a three option referendum, especially on this subject.
Why not?
The three options would be absolutely distinct (remain; go with the government's preferred option of a deal; go with the hard brexiteers' option of a no-deal). The three options cover everything. And, with a single transferable vote, we end up with a clear winner.
Fair, properly explained, definitive. And no-one (even remainers) could complain at the result: we are better informed than we were and the implications of each vote will be far better understood.
Neither Remain or Leave voters should fear it: if they firmly believe they have the will of the people on their side, and that close examination will demonstrate they're right, they should embrace it.
And it will be interesting to see whose political careers are ruined as a result.
So how do we decide which option wins?
We have a vote.
Right, hopefully you’ve thought this through a little more than that.
What, for instance, happens if we end up with a 33/33/34 split? We progress with an option that 66% of the country voted against in a referendum?
He mentioned a single transferrable vote in his previous post, that might settle it.
@Chizz again you are right, YouGov assumed that the voting model you described was used. IIRC, it showed Remain on exactly 50% in the first round.
It ran about 6 weeks ago. Doubtless they will repeat it.
I want that vote to take place, because it will settle the zugzwang into which the government has slowly and painfully manoeuvred itself. They will make "a" decision, rather than no decision, despite the decision they make being against the country's interests.
By placing the responsibility on the electorate and (importantly) acting on it immediately and decisively, we can move on in the knowledge that we have taken back control and that the government is acting on the will of the people. Who wouldn't want to be in that position?
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
It is extemely easy for us. We were the winning side in the referendum put to us. Over 600 MPs backed article 50 showing recognition of that vote We have a democratic process long admired by many across the globe. We have honoured our part in this process by casting our vote (many couldn't be bothered) We expect the government to implement the process of leaving the EU. We don't need to do anything.
I get it. Really I do. The problem will be when the government says you can have something, but it won't be brexit...the BINO option if you like, at it's most crass, issue blue passports and that's that. The winners will have won like that...sort of. Of course if the government says, we can't do it, or at least can't 'regain control of the borders', or can only do a brexit that means we don't participate in EU formal political business, yet we are cool about adhering to the EU rules, what then? I suppose the people then accept the government that they left to get on with it have done their best, and if the only change is on a par with blue passports, then the people will be happy. Is it really about 'the government' acting in any executive way they like, and everybody accepts what they have done or achieved...and this present governmental set up is the hand the country has been dealt? Surely the best thing is to remain and forget any of this even happened?
Personally, I think the negotiated deal or no deal options should be put to the public. The public should then vote to remain or go with the alternative. If this is done then at least there should be little doubt as to what the public have chosen.
Maybe the option to remain as before ought to be added to the two options you mention. The debate around and new vote of referendum will be horrendous.
I don’t think you could have a three option referendum, especially on this subject.
Why not?
The three options would be absolutely distinct (remain; go with the government's preferred option of a deal; go with the hard brexiteers' option of a no-deal). The three options cover everything. And, with a single transferable vote, we end up with a clear winner.
Fair, properly explained, definitive. And no-one (even remainers) could complain at the result: we are better informed than we were and the implications of each vote will be far better understood.
Neither Remain or Leave voters should fear it: if they firmly believe they have the will of the people on their side, and that close examination will demonstrate they're right, they should embrace it.
And it will be interesting to see whose political careers are ruined as a result.
So how do we decide which option wins?
We have a vote.
Right, hopefully you’ve thought this through a little more than that.
What, for instance, happens if we end up with a 33/33/34 split? We progress with an option that 66% of the country voted against in a referendum?
Did you read my post? A single, transferable vote would deliver a clear majority. It's a form of proportional representation. You choose a first preference and a second preference. If, on the first count, none of the three options gains a majority, you count second preference votes.
If the electorate is really split in the way you suggest (and I am aware that you just picked those numbers to illustrate a point), then whatever option is selected on our behalf by the government will be opposed by roughly two-thirds of the electorate. In this way, leaving it to the government guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people don't want.
Enabling a proportional representation vote, where each voters gets to choose his first and second preference guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people are either happy or comfortable with.
I believe that Remain would win on a first count and not even have to rely on second preferences (but I would - I am a remain supporter and I think enough people have learned more about the harm leaving will cause). But offering the three options to everyone, in a referendum that benefits from a better-informed and now rhetoric-averse electorate would be a good thing. Even if remain lost again - because it would mean we get the option most people want, instead of the option most people don't want.
I'm with you most of the way on this Chizz, but it's not quite true to say that vote switching, "guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people are either happy or comfortable with". The nearest that this system can guarantee is that most people don't end up with their third choice.
It's a big step forward on the undemocratic binary banality we faced in 2016, but it is not panacea, and it is in no way preferable to having skilled independent elected representatives doing their job of managing the country's business in the interests of the nation. But sadly we don't have that.
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
I will say this one last time as I've had enough of repeating myself.
How & why is the "solution" down to the leave voters ?? Please tell me how I, as an individual, can do anything about how the UK leaves rhe UK ??? Do you want me to meet Michel Barnier and negotiate ?? Do you want me to go to Ireland & build a border ?? I am genuinely interested how you expect or want me to "own it" & to come up with a solution.
thank you.
If you still have no fricking idea what you want your Brexit to look like and how you want your Brexit to be handled by the people you told to handle it. Why the fricking hell did you vote for it and what the feck did you vote for. It’s sodding unbelievable.
It is extemely easy for us. We were the winning side in the referendum put to us. Over 600 MPs backed article 50 showing recognition of that vote We have a democratic process long admired by many across the globe. We have honoured our part in this process by casting our vote (many couldn't be bothered) We expect the government to implement the process of leaving the EU. We don't need to do anything.
No responsibility taken for your mistake/ deliberate and considered ideological position. Not your decision whether others hold you accountable though. The much maligned political class can be deselected, voted out, pressured to resign. You can smugly sit in your bunker blaming everyone else but you and those like you that are obviously and overtly defensive about taking your share of any blame accruing. The worst of the self righteous smug Thatcherite legacy that fucked this country over.
Let's break this down bit by bit shall we:-
It wasn't a mistake. Hold me account all you like. I appreciate people vote differently to me (see below) Don't understand the much maligned bit No bunker. I have consistently stated and restated my position on here since the vote was cast. I am not blaming anyone in a smug way. Except Maybe Cameron and Osborne. Nothing defensive and no blame attaching. Never voted for Thatcher. Saw her in Lord North Street the day she became Prime Minister and didn't like her then. So I am not part of this legacy that " fucked this country over" . She of course was "relatively" pro EU particularly compared to say Corbyn!!.
Posted from Austria where I am setting up a right wing alliance close to the Eagles nest. Or maybe not...
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
I will say this one last time as I've had enough of repeating myself.
How & why is the "solution" down to the leave voters ?? Please tell me how I, as an individual, can do anything about how the UK leaves rhe UK ??? Do you want me to meet Michel Barnier and negotiate ?? Do you want me to go to Ireland & build a border ?? I am genuinely interested how you expect or want me to "own it" & to come up with a solution.
thank you.
If you still have no fricking idea what you want your Brexit to look like and how you want your Brexit to be handled by the people you told to handle it. Why the fricking hell did you vote for it and what the feck did you vote for. It’s sodding unbelievable.
Which people did golfie tell to handle it?
Cameron? Osborne? Fallon?
Boris was a back bencher and Farage not an mp. David Davis didn't hold any particular office!!
I agree as somebody who voted remain that brexit is my problem because I will be impacted. However I don't agree the solution is my problem. The solution is down to brexit voters, it should be easy for them because they say they knew what they were voting for.
I will say this one last time as I've had enough of repeating myself.
How & why is the "solution" down to the leave voters ?? Please tell me how I, as an individual, can do anything about how the UK leaves rhe UK ??? Do you want me to meet Michel Barnier and negotiate ?? Do you want me to go to Ireland & build a border ?? I am genuinely interested how you expect or want me to "own it" & to come up with a solution.
thank you.
If you still have no fricking idea what you want your Brexit to look like and how you want your Brexit to be handled by the people you told to handle it. Why the fricking hell did you vote for it and what the feck did you vote for. It’s sodding unbelievable.
Which people did golfie tell to handle it?
Cameron? Osborne? Fallon?
Boris was a back bencher and Farage not an mp. David Davis didn't hold any particular office!!
Who does that leave? Gove, Hunt and Corbyn!!
What a trustworthy bunch that is!!!
He told the government of the day. It was called a referendum.
Without recriminations of either side, we seemingly are heading for an outcome that nobody is happy with. Some people who voted Brexit say, that isn't what I voted for, but the make up of the house of commons will not let a hard Brexit pass through and we all voted for that make up. The government knows it has to deliver a Brexit it can get through its own house so it is unlikely it won't agree something.
The referendum was flawed and so badly planned, those responsible for it should face criminal action for reckless demolition of duty. Like I said, nobody is going to be happy at the outcome, from either side of the argument, because the situation is more complex than a yes or no and always was so. There are lots of shades and differences within that.
I think it is what is known as a dog's dinner. As a Brexiter, Danny Dyer so eloquently eluded to, Where is the twat Cameron? Had the referendum allowed for voters to also suggest what the Brexit they wanted looked like - needn't have been too detailed, just a description of hard or soft, then people would still be unhappy, but at least we would know what was going to happen and the government would have had a position so sadly lacking over the past few years. If people are/were too stupid to be able to give a direction of travel view as well as the vote, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
It wasn't a mistake. No benefit in your lifetime, so who were you making this decision for?
Hold me account all you like. I appreciate people vote differently to me (see below) The key point, we all share the cost of your choice but there is no mechanism for any recompense.
Don't understand the much maligned bit See above
No bunker. I have consistently stated and restated my position on here since the vote was cast. The bunker is the metaphorical one constructed around the leave voter. In which they manufacture justifications for their choice in spite of the weakness of their case which is more apparent as time moves on. Where they feel protected from the realisation that they've made a mistake and that many ordinary working people will suffer as will younger generations, who fundamentally reject what they've been saddled with.
I am not blaming anyone in a smug way. Except Maybe Cameron and Osborne. The conceit that somehow you are striking a blow against a political class for the ordinary citizen, see your regular attempts to associate remain vote with Blair. Thatcher etc. You're about the smuggest, most self satisfied poster on here.
Nothing defensive and no blame attaching. Stock defence is you exercised a democratic right, been handled badly by politicians who are not up to the job because they are intellectual pygmies compared to those like yourself that "get it", if only everybody else was a smart as you.
Never voted for Thatcher. Saw her in Lord North Street the day she became Prime Minister and didn't like her then. So I am not part of this legacy that " fucked this country over" . She of course was "relatively" pro EU particularly compared to say Corbyn!!. This cannot be so hard to understand can it? You voted for self over any wider sense of community. You are one amongst many who have enabled anti democratic disaster capitalists to make their play for power. You have, with others thrown what is left of our societal safety nets to the corporate wolves. You amongst others of your ilk have ultimately decided that the haves will have more. You didn't need to vote for her to embrace the reality she unleashed, she was the facilitator of the privatisation basket case we have become. She was an ideologue with no awareness of the broader consequences of her position, Gove is her closest relation currently. As for Corbyn reference? He's just like you isn't he? Unable to say you were wrong.
Posted from Austria where I am setting up a right wing alliance close to the Eagles nest. Or maybe not... Nazi reference???? Something on your mind?
"...The number of officials who have left the Whitehall department trying to deliver Brexit is equivalent to more than half of its total staff, shock new figures reveal...
...According to the turnover data obtained under freedom of information, a staggering 357 staff have left the Dexeu in just two years...
... the National Audit Office highlighted in December 2017 how churn at Dexeu is running at nine per cent a quarter, when the civil service average was nine per cent a year..."
"...The number of officials who have left the Whitehall department trying to deliver Brexit is equivalent to more than half of its total staff, shock new figures reveal...
...According to the turnover data obtained under freedom of information, a staggering 357 staff have left the Dexeu in just two years...
... the National Audit Office highlighted in December 2017 how churn at Dexeu is running at nine per cent a quarter, when the civil service average was nine per cent a year..."
Another step on our way to becoming an irrelevant and impoverished little nation without influence and a laughing stock around the globe....but hey, blue passports!
Don't usually agree with anything Owen Jones writes but he nails it here. Scummy Labour Brexit politician cynically using the the myth of Labour anti-Semitism to justify his actions when he knows his Brexit views and vote to keep the Tories in power disgusts the vast majority of Labour supporters.
Thanks for the link. Even before reading, one can associate Kate Hoey with Frank Field due to their Brexit positioning. Both MPs have been no confidenced by their local constituency parties.
Everything that happens over the next six months should be looked through the twin lenses of December 2020 as the end of a possible transition period and the next General election which might be in any year up until 2022. Who is going to blink first within the Tories and will Labour back a people's vote?
Last week we saw the Chequers proposition blown to bits by Barnier. Now Davis and Johnson have joined in and it appears Davis has his own plan which is remarkably similar to a Canada deal that results in a hard border in Ireland - that simply won't fly with the EU!
Once again, it's Norway, Canada/ no deal or abort the process. There's no time for anything else and the EU27 were never going to accept anything bespoke or cherry picking. 'Tis now the season for the long awaited blue on blue attacks so best sit back and sort out popcorn supplies!
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Do the 27 even have the legal ability to extend Article 50 ? Wouldn’t this be a complete change to the treaty which would need ratification by each member state independently having to agree at state level and even in some cases regional level before having a vote at full Council. Could easily take months with no guarantee. Wouldn’t even the British Parliament need to agree as an existing member state ?
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Looks like the rumoured attempt at a coup against St Theresa is well and truly underway. Johnson and his ‘Johnny Foreigner ‘ advisors seem to think it is now or never.
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Do the 27 even have the legal ability to extend Article 50 ? Wouldn’t this be a complete change to the treaty which would need ratification by each member state independently having to agree at state level and even in some cases regional level before having a vote at full Council. Could easily take months with no guarantee. Wouldn’t even the British Parliament need to agree as an existing member state ?
Section 3 states "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Do the 27 even have the legal ability to extend Article 50 ? Wouldn’t this be a complete change to the treaty which would need ratification by each member state independently having to agree at state level and even in some cases regional level before having a vote at full Council. Could easily take months with no guarantee. Wouldn’t even the British Parliament need to agree as an existing member state ?
Section 3 states "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
So it appears they can.
But wouldn’t the European Council need to have the unanimous agreement of each member state ?
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Do the 27 even have the legal ability to extend Article 50 ? Wouldn’t this be a complete change to the treaty which would need ratification by each member state independently having to agree at state level and even in some cases regional level before having a vote at full Council. Could easily take months with no guarantee. Wouldn’t even the British Parliament need to agree as an existing member state ?
Section 3 states "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
So it appears they can.
But wouldn’t the European Council need to have the unanimous agreement of each member state ?
And if that happens cue the reaction from the hard of thinking: "Oh look they are desperate for us to stay, they can't survive without us, proves we will be better off out"
If it doesn't "See, they all hate us, proves we should leave"
The BBC's political correspondent on R4T was asked what the Brexit ultras' alternative is to the Chequers plan. Ah, he said, that is far from clear and depends on whom you ask. So as usual these muppets know what they don't like but have no idea how to bring something better (and rooted in the real world)> And as he said, that rather strengthens May's position.
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
Do the 27 even have the legal ability to extend Article 50 ? Wouldn’t this be a complete change to the treaty which would need ratification by each member state independently having to agree at state level and even in some cases regional level before having a vote at full Council. Could easily take months with no guarantee. Wouldn’t even the British Parliament need to agree as an existing member state ?
Section 3 states "The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
So it appears they can.
But wouldn’t the European Council need to have the unanimous agreement of each member state ?
The European Council represents the 27 - if the Council agrees unanimously, the member states have as well.
It doesn't require ratification, as it is already a part of an existing Treaty and is an agreed process.
In reality, however, given that the biggest problem in negotiations to date seems to be the UK agreeing its position, the most difficult part would be getting the UK's agreement.
The problem with extending the time allowed under Article 50 is what would then happen to any transitional period (logically speaking, that should be shortened by the same amount of time, unless the UK was to remain fully in the next 7 year (I think) funding round.
In any event, Article 50 would only be extended if the EU27 believe that there is movement towards a departure agreement that they can ratify.
There are suggestions that, last week, the Polish Foreign Minister (having the Polish and, probably, Hungarian Governments on your side might not be the best recommendation) began an EU27 Council of Ministers discussion with "we can either have a deal with the UK, or we can support Ireland", and then (allegedly to Polish surprise) spent the next hour or so having every other member state arguing in favour of the Irish interest.
Comments
If the electorate is really split in the way you suggest (and I am aware that you just picked those numbers to illustrate a point), then whatever option is selected on our behalf by the government will be opposed by roughly two-thirds of the electorate. In this way, leaving it to the government guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people don't want.
Enabling a proportional representation vote, where each voters gets to choose his first and second preference guarantees that we end up with a solution that most people are either happy or comfortable with.
I believe that Remain would win on a first count and not even have to rely on second preferences (but I would - I am a remain supporter and I think enough people have learned more about the harm leaving will cause). But offering the three options to everyone, in a referendum that benefits from a better-informed and now rhetoric-averse electorate would be a good thing. Even if remain lost again - because it would mean we get the option most people want, instead of the option most people don't want.
I will forever blame you, you will forever blame someone (anyone) else.
It ran about 6 weeks ago. Doubtless they will repeat it.
By placing the responsibility on the electorate and (importantly) acting on it immediately and decisively, we can move on in the knowledge that we have taken back control and that the government is acting on the will of the people. Who wouldn't want to be in that position?
It's a big step forward on the undemocratic binary banality we faced in 2016, but it is not panacea, and it is in no way preferable to having skilled independent elected representatives doing their job of managing the country's business in the interests of the nation. But sadly we don't have that.
It wasn't a mistake.
Hold me account all you like. I appreciate people vote differently to me (see below)
Don't understand the much maligned bit
No bunker. I have consistently stated and restated my position on here since the vote was cast.
I am not blaming anyone in a smug way. Except Maybe Cameron and Osborne.
Nothing defensive and no blame attaching.
Never voted for Thatcher. Saw her in Lord North Street the day she became Prime Minister and didn't like her then.
So I am not part of this legacy that " fucked this country over" . She of course was "relatively" pro EU particularly compared to say Corbyn!!.
Posted from Austria where I am setting up a right wing alliance close to the Eagles nest. Or maybe not...
Cameron?
Osborne?
Fallon?
Boris was a back bencher and Farage not an mp. David Davis didn't hold any particular office!!
Who does that leave? Gove, Hunt and Corbyn!!
What a trustworthy bunch that is!!!
The referendum was flawed and so badly planned, those responsible for it should face criminal action for reckless demolition of duty. Like I said, nobody is going to be happy at the outcome, from either side of the argument, because the situation is more complex than a yes or no and always was so. There are lots of shades and differences within that.
I think it is what is known as a dog's dinner. As a Brexiter, Danny Dyer so eloquently eluded to, Where is the twat Cameron? Had the referendum allowed for voters to also suggest what the Brexit they wanted looked like - needn't have been too detailed, just a description of hard or soft, then people would still be unhappy, but at least we would know what was going to happen and the government would have had a position so sadly lacking over the past few years. If people are/were too stupid to be able to give a direction of travel view as well as the vote, they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
It wasn't a mistake. No benefit in your lifetime, so who were you making this decision for?
Hold me account all you like. I appreciate people vote differently to me (see below) The key point, we all share the cost of your choice but there is no mechanism for any recompense.
Don't understand the much maligned bit See above
No bunker. I have consistently stated and restated my position on here since the vote was cast. The bunker is the metaphorical one constructed around the leave voter. In which they manufacture justifications for their choice in spite of the weakness of their case which is more apparent as time moves on. Where they feel protected from the realisation that they've made a mistake and that many ordinary working people will suffer as will younger generations, who fundamentally reject what they've been saddled with.
I am not blaming anyone in a smug way. Except Maybe Cameron and Osborne. The conceit that somehow you are striking a blow against a political class for the ordinary citizen, see your regular attempts to associate remain vote with Blair. Thatcher etc. You're about the smuggest, most self satisfied poster on here.
Nothing defensive and no blame attaching. Stock defence is you exercised a democratic right, been handled badly by politicians who are not up to the job because they are intellectual pygmies compared to those like yourself that "get it", if only everybody else was a smart as you.
Never voted for Thatcher. Saw her in Lord North Street the day she became Prime Minister and didn't like her then.
So I am not part of this legacy that " fucked this country over" . She of course was "relatively" pro EU particularly compared to say Corbyn!!. This cannot be so hard to understand can it? You voted for self over any wider sense of community. You are one amongst many who have enabled anti democratic disaster capitalists to make their play for power. You have, with others thrown what is left of our societal safety nets to the corporate wolves. You amongst others of your ilk have ultimately decided that the haves will have more. You didn't need to vote for her to embrace the reality she unleashed, she was the facilitator of the privatisation basket case we have become. She was an ideologue with no awareness of the broader consequences of her position, Gove is her closest relation currently. As for Corbyn reference? He's just like you isn't he? Unable to say you were wrong.
Posted from Austria where I am setting up a right wing alliance close to the Eagles nest. Or maybe not... Nazi reference???? Something on your mind?
...According to the turnover data obtained under freedom of information, a staggering 357 staff have left the Dexeu in just two years...
... the National Audit Office highlighted in December 2017 how churn at Dexeu is running at nine per cent a quarter, when the civil service average was nine per cent a year..."
https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-officials-whitehall-department-no-deal-civil-servants-uk-eu-a8519361.html
All going well at the department for getting us out then.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/02/britain-loses-medicines-contracts-as-eu-body-anticipates-brexit
Everything that happens over the next six months should be looked through the twin lenses of December 2020 as the end of a possible transition period and the next General election which might be in any year up until 2022. Who is going to blink first within the Tories and will Labour back a people's vote?
Last week we saw the Chequers proposition blown to bits by Barnier. Now Davis and Johnson have joined in and it appears Davis has his own plan which is remarkably similar to a Canada deal that results in a hard border in Ireland - that simply won't fly with the EU!
Once again, it's Norway, Canada/ no deal or abort the process. There's no time for anything else and the EU27 were never going to accept anything bespoke or cherry picking. 'Tis now the season for the long awaited blue on blue attacks so best sit back and sort out popcorn supplies!
So here is my prediction. May is going to use the big meeting in the autumn with the EU27 to beg for (and she will have to beg) a one year extension to the Article 50 deadline, assuming that she cannot get full EU agreement to her Chequers proposal. She has to. There is no way on this earth that she can get the country ready to leave on 29.3.19 (my effing birthday, FFS). As frequently reported, no infrastructure has even been planned, let alone built at our ports, for example, and nothing has been agreed about our new relationship with all the EU institutions which cover nuclear energy, medicines, food standards, Europol/intelligence sharing, air travel. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseam.
Think I'm wrong? OK tell me this. What in political terms is worse for her? A humiliating cap in hand approach to the EU for an extension, or flights to Malaga for all the Brexiteering UK residents grounded, the lorries queuing back to Brexitland-on-Medway and the shelves emptying of rocket and avocados? It's called realpolitik.
So it appears they can.
If it doesn't "See, they all hate us, proves we should leave"
It doesn't require ratification, as it is already a part of an existing Treaty and is an agreed process.
In reality, however, given that the biggest problem in negotiations to date seems to be the UK agreeing its position, the most difficult part would be getting the UK's agreement.
The problem with extending the time allowed under Article 50 is what would then happen to any transitional period (logically speaking, that should be shortened by the same amount of time, unless the UK was to remain fully in the next 7 year (I think) funding round.
In any event, Article 50 would only be extended if the EU27 believe that there is movement towards a departure agreement that they can ratify.
There are suggestions that, last week, the Polish Foreign Minister (having the Polish and, probably, Hungarian Governments on your side might not be the best recommendation) began an EU27 Council of Ministers discussion with "we can either have a deal with the UK, or we can support Ireland", and then (allegedly to Polish surprise) spent the next hour or so having every other member state arguing in favour of the Irish interest.
I might pop back when the euro collapses for a good old gloat. But all the best till then!
Drama queen alert