If there is a second referendum ...

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

PM May was never going to be trusted with delivering a deal was she.

Certainly, not after a very poor GE undermined her credibility.

It might be that the price of securing "no FOM" was inevitably high. Who knows. Sadly, few of her political peers trust her.

Those referendum voters who voted to "poke the government in the eye"...they really did get the result they wanted. And then some.

I would imagine most of the harder Leavers would have much preferred she had agreed to the backstop being NI only and then pushed for a FTA with the EU, unfortunately no majority for that in Parliament, and no time to reopen any negotiations either

As far as I can tell there is no majority in Parliament for any outcome at present, so we will have to see if a winning coalition forms around any outcome as the pressure of the approaching deadline starts to become stronger.

BLB53

But the problem is they can't agree on how to implement the result... parliament has control, but no-one can agree on how to proceed!

The referendum result instructed Parliament to leave the EU. As I read the situation, the majority of MPs really do not wish to leave whilst pretending they want to honour the vote.

The fact that PM has negotiated such a bad deal (possibly deliberately) which MPs rightly cannot support is not the fault of the people.

As I understand it, the ref2 supporters are suggesting the people decide between the PMs bad deal or remain.

The only way to avoid a constitutional crisis is to respect the 2016 referendum and, in the absence of a decent deal, pick out the uncontested parts of what has been agreed so far but then leave on WTO rules. I agree far from ideal at this late stage but I'm afraid the Westminster elite have let us down badly. The alternatives will be far worse imho.

andrewf75

BLB53 wrote: »

The referendum result instructed Parliament to leave the EU. As I read the situation, the majority of MPs really do not wish to leave whilst pretending they want to honour the vote.

The fact that PM has negotiated such a bad deal (possibly deliberately) which MPs rightly cannot support is not the fault of the people.

As I understand it, the ref2 supporters are suggesting the people decide between the PMs bad deal or remain.

The only way to avoid a constitutional crisis is to respect the 2016 referendum and, in the absence of a decent deal, pick out the uncontested parts of what has been agreed so far but then leave on WTO rules. I agree far from ideal at this late stage but I'm afraid the Westminster elite have let us down badly. The alternatives will be far worse imho.

I'm no fan of May but she has negotiated the best deal possible to balance respecting the vote and acting in the country's best economic interests. Really, I think MPs (especially Labour) should be backing it, but they are playing party politics.

I agree leaving on WTO rules would be fair, but our sovereign parliament also has a duty to act in the best interests of the country and as such they couldn't do that because the implications are so serious.

I think if leaving on WTO terms is an option, we should be asked to confirm it first. Remain v May's deal makes no sense to me as no-one wants May's deal! It should be WTO Brexit v Remain. Then in the event of a leave vote parliament should be clear on how to proceed - and it should be set in stone first to avoid the current mess happening again. The campaign could then make it clear that the Good Friday Agreement is cancelled in the event of a leave vote. That removes the biggest obstacle.

BLB53

I'm no fan of May but she has negotiated the best deal possible to balance respecting the vote and acting in the country's best economic interests.

I think this probably gets to the heart of this dilema.

We had a binary choice and leave won. Yes it was unexpected and a shock to the country.

In most elections, the loser accepts the decision and everyone moves on. But here, the Government and senior civil servants have been trying to please remainers by watering down what leave means - as admirably set out by PM in her Lancaster House speech.

In attempting to please everyone, as is so often the case, you end up pleasing neither side.

Maybe this was inevitable with so many MPs and senior civil servants supporting the remain camp and so out of touch with ordinary people living outside of the M25 but, if correct, then it means the system is fundamentally flawed and in need of a major change.

This will hopefully bring about a realignment of UK politics...but I am not holding my breath.

andrewf75

BLB53 wrote: »

But here, the Government and senior civil servants have been trying to please remainers by watering down what leave means

Not sure they're trying to please remainers, they've just been trying to do Brexit in the least damaging way. After all, economic stability and safe centre ground business friendly economics is a lot of what the Tories stand for!

But that isn't compatible with Brexit, which is radical and idealistic. That is the real dilemma and its no surprise that its tearing the party apart.

Agree politics needs a shakeup.

movilogo

majority of MPs really do not wish to leave whilst pretending they want to honour the vote

The MPs have forgotten that they are there to serve the public and not the other way round.

They just can't accept the fact they are actually public servants.

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

The MPs have forgotten that they are there to serve the public and not the other way round.

They just can't accept the fact they are actually public servants.

yes but serving the public also commits them to protecting the economy, jobs, living standards etc.

StevieJ

movilogo wrote: »

The MPs have forgotten that they are there to serve the public and not the other way round.

They just can't accept the fact they are actually public servants.

It was 52-48 which implies a 'Soft Brexit' They need t go for Norway+ and get on with it.

andrewf75

StevieJ wrote: »

It was 52-48 which implies a 'Soft Brexit' They need t go for Norway+ and get on with it.

Should have done that right from the start before promising all these ridiculous red lines. Too late now I suspect.

silverwhistle

BLB53 wrote: »

In most elections, the loser accepts the decision and everyone moves on. But here, the Government and senior civil servants have been trying to please remainers by watering down what leave means -

I don't agree with your analysis in the first place: it smacks of the parroted simplicity and meaninglessness of "leave means leave", and finding someone else to blame.

But this wasn't an election, where we have the prospect of changing our minds in a few years next time we vote. It's far more fundamental than that.


Senior civil servants have been desperately trying to make a complicated affair work, and faced with Raab who didn't realise how important Dover was, the NI secretary who had no clue on local politics there and the vile Priti Patel's comments on the Irish, to take some of the more egregiously stupid politicians.

As for re-negotiation the situation was summed up in Dead Ringers on radio 4 Friday night with a sketch in which Barnier asked the mock interviewer who should he renegotiate with? But it's quite clear that there is nothing to renegotiate and we aren't in a position to improve the terms.

We've lost two Brexit secretaries: let's face it, because they know the whole thing is going to be a disaster and want to disassociate themselves and their own incompetencies from it as much as possible.


Every time someone with a little expertise in a particular sector points out areas of difficulty there are mob-like cries of remoaner and concerns are dismissed as negativity. I find it incredibly worrying. If we drop out without a deal and there is a massive recession I can't see any of the above group accepting any of the blame.