Brexit, for once some facts.

[50Hertz]

zlatan misunderstood my questions. Whether he did that on purpose or not, I can't tell.
The need for asking two questions instead on 1 multiple choice question is to avoid splitting leave votes, the intention is to replicate the first referendum, if the voters have not changed their mind, then a second question offers further choice or choices.

I believe that I understand. The problem as I see it is this. Say we hold a second referendum along the lines that you suggest and leave wins again by say 60% to 40%. We then look at part B, the options for leaving. What if the split was similar to the main vote 60% wanting to leave with no deal and 40% with something like TM’s deal? That means we would leave the EU based on only 36% of voters wanting that option. That can’t be fair. Those who voted for the Leave with a Deal option may prefer to remain rather than exit with no deal. It’s a complicated issue.

 

[Woosh]

The problem as I see it is this. Say we hold a second referendum along the lines that you suggest and leave wins again by say 60% to 40%. We then look at part B, the options for leaving. What if the split was similar to the main vote 60% wanting to leave with no deal and 40% with something like TM’s deal?

then we leave on WTO.
the instruction is clear.
The margin is sufficient to stop the temptation to change the vote with another referendum.
Perhaps the question should be tweaked to allow those who vote for remain to choose May's deal as last resort.

 

[50Hertz]

then we leave on WTO.
the instruction is clear.
The margin is sufficient to stop the temptation to change the vote with another referendum.
Voters who choose to remain don't have to answer question 2.

I think it would be wrong to leave on WTO with only just over one third of voters wanting that situation. That’s why I think the Part B to the Leave option is flawed.

It would be fairer to have a simple Leave or Stay option, but make it clear that Leave may mean a WTO deal and all that comes with it, good or bad. I think people have seen through some of the BS from the last vote and are in a better position to choose.

 

[oldgroaner]

I think you may have misinterpreted my last post, but I can’t be arsed to explain how.

Actually despite it being unclear, I understood it all right.
And I don't discount the opinions of the leave voters "
unless you are old groaner who would be content to bin their concerns and opinions because they are Idiots and gullible.
Simply because they are based on lies and false promises they have been sold.
For some reason telling them the truth immediately makes them imagine that they are being called fools for being taken in .
That is not so, but not seeing through the lies later when facts blow them away, is foolish.
Which is where we are now.
If Brexit is still a good idea, why can no one agree on the form it should take?
They really cannot have had the slightest notion of what they wanted at the start, can they?
It was all a gamble, and based on lies and swindling the vote.
Who can honestly claim there was actually a plan that had been worked out?

 

[Woosh]

It would be fairer to have a simple Leave or Stay option, but make it clear that Leave may mean a WTO deal and all that comes with it, good or bad. I think people have seen through some of the BS from the last vote and are in a better position to choose.

that's why I dislike referenda. The questions are imperfect enough even before the issue of how to determine if the result satisfies our democratic criteria and are sure that the voters understand the implication of their choices?

Leave does not mean WTO.
If the country decides to leave, then the question of how do we leave must be asked again because it affects everyone, leavers and remainers. At present, that question rests with parliament.
If parliament fails to answer, then voters need to be asked to vote again.

 

[50Hertz]

that's why I dislike referenda. The questions are imperfect enough even before the issue of how to determine if the result satisfies our democratic criteria and are sure that the voters understand the implication of their choices?

Leave does not mean WTO.
If the country decides to leave, then the question of how do we leave must be asked again because it affects everyone, leavers and remainers. At present, that question rests with parliament.
If parliament fails to answer, then voters need to be asked to vote again.

But leave can mean WTO and some voters want to leave but not on WTO.

Even if there is a vote on the “final deal” that leaves the possibility that the government will not try hard to secure a good deal, thus offering a poor deal so as to coerce voters into remaining.

There are so many permutations it’s very hard, maybe impossible, to arrive at a solution. I still think the simplest way forward is another In or Out type vote, with the Out option meaning you could be voting for a WTO type of situation. People need to consider that and make their choice.

 

[Woosh]

Even if there is a vote on the “final deal” that leaves the possibility that the government will not try hard to secure a good deal, thus offering a poor deal so as to coerce voters into remaining.

government is simply the largest grouping of MPs.
in normal time, if the government has negotiated a deal, it will be ratified by parliament so it's wrong to say your government wants to coerce anyone.

As I said before, I dislike referenda because

The questions are imperfect enough even before the issue of how to determine if the result satisfies our democratic criteria and are sure that the voters understand the implication of their choices?

MPs are assumed to know the implication of their votes and their votes are the expression of our democracy, we leave them to vote on important issues.
This time, we are in a very unusual situation that parliament seems to be unable to do their normal job.
We have only two ways to resolve this: a new parliament or as they say, turkeys dont vote for Christmas, another referendum.

By the way, according to various polls, there is no majority in the country for WTO brexit. It's not a good idea to threaten the E27 with that, Mrs May has already indicated that we want an FTA sooner rather than later.

 

[50Hertz]

I think it would be wrong to leave on WTO with only just over one third of voters wanting that situation. That’s why I think the Part B to the Leave option is flawed.

It would be fairer to have a simple Leave or Stay option, but make it clear that Leave may mean a WTO deal and all that comes with it, good or bad. I think people have seen through some of the BS from the last vote and are in a better position to choose.

I’m not sure what Jonathan Agnew disagrees with in the above post. What is to fear from a second vote, now that the lies and personal ambitions have been exposed? A simple In or Out vote.

 

[Woosh]

I’m not sure what Jonathan Agnew disagrees with in the above post.

I think he may have disagreed with this part: 'but make it clear that Leave may mean a WTO deal '.

WTO deal means no deal, no FTA, treat the EU27 as if they were one on this list:

• Holy See
• Mauritania
• Monaco
• Montenegro
• Palau
• Timor-Leste
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Serbia
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Western Sahara

Those are the countries we currently deal with under WTO terms.
Clearly, this is an irresponsible strategy to move our biggest trading partner to join the list after brexit.
We are leaving a club, we shouldn't use the nuclear option.

 

[Woosh]

BTW, I like JC's strategy.
TM will soon warm up to his approach to brexit.

The Pound rises noticeably since his speech.
If you haven't noticed, I am much happier when the Pound rises, that means I don't have to worry about increasing our prices and make us uncompetitive.

 

[50Hertz]

I think he may have disagreed with this part: 'but make it clear that Leave may mean a WTO deal '.

WTO deal means no deal, no FTA, treat the EU27 as if they were one on this list:

• Holy See
• Mauritania
• Monaco
• Montenegro
• Palau
• Timor-Leste
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Serbia
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Western Sahara

Those are the countries we currently deal with under WTO terms.
Clearly, this is an irresponsible strategy to move our biggest trading partner to join the list after brexit.
We are leaving a club, we shouldn't use the nuclear option.

As a Leave voter in the last referendum, I don’t think that Leave would be voted for again if it included existing on WTO terms. People were led to believe that post Brexit, the The EU would be desperate to strike a deal with the UK, mostly on our terms. That clearly hasn’t happened, so people will be more cautious next time and will likely return a remain result.

I just think this is one plausible way to break the deadlock. The current situation is pathetic and the MPs in parliament should forever relive their shame.

 

[Nev]

As a Leave voter in the last referendum, I don’t think that Leave would be voted for again if it included existing on WTO terms. QUOTE]

I would like to think you are correct but I am not so sure. The leave people fought an excellent campaign and the remain a poor one. That could easily happen again. Who would be the face of the remain campaign TM? She would be a waste of time and JC isn't all that bothered if we remain or leave just as long as he becomes PM.

I can see it being a very close result, and leave could easily win once again with about the same margin. If remain won with around the same total as leave last time then you can be certain they would be calling for a best out of three and could you really blame them.

I don't want to leave but if it goes to a peoples vote then remain need to fight a far better campaign than they did last time otherwise leave will win again.

 

[Woosh]

I would like to think you are correct but I am not so sure. The leave people fought an excellent campaign and the remain a poor one. That could easily happen again. Who would be the face of the remain campaign TM? She would be a waste of time and JC isn't all that bothered if we remain or leave just as long as he becomes PM.

I'd suggest Chuka as leader of the remain camp, flanked by Amber Rudd and Jo Johnson for the conservative front bench, Hilary Benn and Tom Watson for Labour front bench.
If remain wants to win, it has to stop talking about the economy and concentrate on winning the heart of the voters.

 

[Fingers]

government is simply the largest grouping of MPs.
in normal time, if the government has negotiated a deal, it will be ratified by parliament so it's wrong to say your government wants to coerce anyone.

As I said before, I dislike referenda because


MPs are assumed to know the implication of their votes and their votes are the expression of our democracy, we leave them to vote on important issues.
This time, we are in a very unusual situation that parliament seems to be unable to do their normal job.
We have only two ways to resolve this: a new parliament or as they say, turkeys dont vote for Christmas, another referendum.

By the way, according to various polls, there is no majority in the country for WTO brexit. It's not a good idea to threaten the E27 with that, Mrs May has already indicated that we want an FTA sooner rather than later.

Another referendum will be a disaster for this country.

It will in all likelihood see the end our own Union.

 

[Woosh]

Another referendum will be a disaster for this country.

It will in all likelihood see the end our own Union.

Direct democracy will lead to very many unhappy voters when they find themselves on the losing side.

 

[Fingers]

Direct democracy will lead to very many unhappy voters when they find themselves on the losing side.

As you can see on here. Doesn't mean you have to bend to the whingeing every time.

 

[Woosh]

fingers, which brexit do you support?

 

[Fingers]

fingers, which brexit do you support?

I'd like free trade, free movement (but not free benefits or housing until you have worked/lived here a specified time ) collaboration in the arts, security and sciences.

Thats it. Pretty simple really.

But I'd be happy to go down the WTO route if the EU carry on as they are.

 

[flecc]

I would like to think you are correct but I am not so sure. The leave people fought an excellent campaign and the remain a poor one. That could easily happen again. Who would be the face of the remain campaign TM? She would be a waste of time and JC isn't all that bothered if we remain or leave just as long as he becomes PM.

I can see it being a very close result, and leave could easily win once again with about the same margin. If remain won with around the same total as leave last time then you can be certain they would be calling for a best out of three and could you really blame them.

I don't want to leave but if it goes to a peoples vote then remain need to fight a far better campaign than they did last time otherwise leave will win again.

I disagree. After the experience of gross lies and distortions last time and the outcome of a poor deal after all the promises that a good deal would be easy to get, campaigns will be ignored in favour of peoples own opinions in a new vote. As it should be.

The polls show a very large lead for Remain now and I'm sure that's the way it would go, a clear result.

Think about this, the Remainers weren't let down with false promises since they already knew what they had. But the Leavers have been very badly let down in every way. They won but have been delivered a loss.

So who do you think might either change their mind or just not bother to vote because they were betrayed?
.

 

[oldgroaner]

As a Leave voter in the last referendum, I don’t think that Leave would be voted for again if it included existing on WTO terms. People were led to believe that post Brexit, the The EU would be desperate to strike a deal with the UK, mostly on our terms. That clearly hasn’t happened, so people will be more cautious next time and will likely return a remain result.

I just think this is one plausible way to break the deadlock. The current situation is pathetic and the MPs in parliament should forever relive their shame.

Well done, I agree competely with you, and wonder how Parliament is ever going to regain public faith in the future.
They have all let us down very badly