A Question for Tory Supporters

phillw

LHW99 wrote: »

So the 2016 referendum was advisory, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously and the result acted upon, whereas one that JC sets up will be acted upon even if the answer is Leave with no deal?
pardon my scepticism.

I am sure they can choose to not make it advisory, they didn't do that with the 2016 referendum.

One of the court cases against the leave campaign failed purely because it was an advisory referendum, otherwise it would be covered by more stringent laws & the referendum would have needed to be re-run anyway.

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

So the 2016 referendum was advisory, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously and the result acted upon, whereas one that JC sets up will be acted upon even if the answer is Leave with no deal?
pardon my scepticism.

He could always make it binding. Or he can treat it as advisory and allow it to direct the government to represent the people. It's not a perfect system but without it we're in a complete deadlock.

Herzlos

phillw wrote: »

I don't think Boris was expecting parliament to vote for an election, it was a bluff so he could say he offered.

I think it was so he could campaign on a "We're leaving on the 31st October with or without a deal" platform, so that he's been voted in before betraying everyone. If he waits until after betraying everyone it'll be a lot harder to win an election.

phillw

Herzlos wrote: »

I think it was so he could campaign on a "We're leaving on the 31st October with or without a deal" platform, so that he's been voted in before betraying everyone. If he waits until after betraying everyone it'll be a lot harder to win an election.

Maybe, but he can now say

"I wanted to have a GE to make my negotiating position more secure, but they denied me because they are chicken and also made it impossible to leave, please give me a huge majority and I will make all your dreams come true"

At that point everyone who believe in any positive (even conflicting) benefit of brexit will vote for conservatives, at least that would be what Dominic Cummings read in a book.

Sailtheworld

LHW99 wrote: »

So the 2016 referendum was advisory, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously and the result acted upon, whereas one that JC sets up will be acted upon even if the answer is Leave with no deal?
pardon my scepticism.

If Corbyn is Prime Minster it means he doesn't have to consult with the Brexit party about the questions.

When he says there will be a meaningful leave option I very much doubt it will include no deal

phillw

Sailtheworld wrote: »

When he says there will be a meaningful leave option I very much doubt it will include no deal

Probably not, because it would be unlikely to win and would split the vote.

In fact it's us remainers that want no deal, a deal, remain on the ballot for that very reason.

So careful what you wish for.

Takedap

Herzlos wrote: »

I think it was so he could campaign on a "We're leaving on the 31st October with or without a deal" platform, so that he's been voted in before betraying everyone. If he waits until after betraying everyone it'll be a lot harder to win an election.

If he won, it also allows him to say that he had a mandate for doing it thereby removing his personal responsibility for any ensuing "unpleasantness"


Never has the phrase "You asked for it" been more appropriate.

SpiderLegs

Herzlos wrote: »

Alternatively the GE is to allow the public the choice whilst it's still a choice. Having a GE right now means that we'll likely leave before there's any option to see if it's what the public want.


If enough people want a no deal in a referendum, then Corbyn will be compelled to seek a no deal.

You are defending a corbyn based second referendum without any apparent knowledge of what that looks like.
To clear it up for you -
He says he will give a referendum on revoke or leave with some kind of deal (that they will negotiate :doh:)
That is the choice. There is no option for no-deal.

That is not, in any sense of the word, democratic.

lisyloo

If parliament are not prepared for us to leave without a deal then why should it be on the ballot paper.
We shouldn’t be offering undeliverable options, it does great damage when people can’t have what they voted for.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

If parliament are not prepared for us to leave without a deal then why should it be on the ballot paper.

Only a few hardliners would even vote for it. It's not moderate enough position to gain wide scale support in the general population.

I still have enough faith in people that Farage hasn't been able to radicalize enough people for people to prefer no deal brexit.