I'm guessing the PM must get an extension or withdraw article 50 if the deadline approaches.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I'm guessing the PM must get an extension or withdraw article 50 if the deadline approaches.
I don't know what the latest iteration of this idea has been, but iirc they initially went after it indirectly, trying to prevent the goverment from making legislative changes that would become necessary when leaving without a deal.
Last edited:
No... I believe Parliament has compelled her to ask for an extension - which she has... if the EU reject this then the legal default is still no deal
I suspect you will probably see the EU agree but only with a long deal at which point she possibly goes back to parliament to say her deal or long extension (with the threat of no brexit) on Thursday
Basically the showdown she always wanted of her deal vs a cliff edge (be that no deal or no brexit)
At that point i guess she hopes enough of the ERG hold their noses and vote for her deal and there is enough cross party support to offset the DUP
Gut feel she will loose but possibly by not a huge amount
Extend and pretend. Just put it to the people ffs. Parliament can’t agree on anything anyway.
true... though I'm not sure the people can agree on anything anyway and even agreeing the wording of a vote would be a minefield
You could say we have voted to leave once therefore any second referendum is how we leave (mays deal or no deal)
you could say we want to have a re-run of leave and remain (but as we have seen what does leave actually entail)
or do you go multi option - and then how many options (hard brexit, mays deal, remain) or do you open it up to future trade as well (hard brexit, single market, customs union, remain as we are, join euro and shengen)
and if you do go multi option is it single vote - ranking preference, ticking all acceptable.
Who is eligable to vote (what age, can EU nationals vote, how about brits abroad)... would it be the same as before or not
honestly I think you have a year of legal challenges to even agree a question
When it comes to brexit, Sir Ivan Rodgers is Nostradamus. In 2016, he said "brexit will defeat brexit". Few understood what he was saying.
The hate Peter Orbone is getting is ridiculous. One thing a zealot hates more than the uninitiated, is the apostate.
You'd like to think that they'd learnt something about suggesting a course of action without thinking it through.
So assuming people are already thinking about it, and bearing in mind how many times worthwhile solutions have been suggested ITT over the last year or so, you'd think it would be less chaotic than it is now.
May even go someway to calming the situation and given people a sense of purpose and direction, which is the point isn't it?
Is this happening or not?
Not really been paying attention tbh
Not really been paying attention tbh
We don't know how well it goes but doesn't look like it's happening in the next few months.
Tbh, it's not that hard. There's already a precedence on who can vote. British nationals home or abroad of 18 years or older. Future trade deals are off the table until we leave. EU can't negotiate anything till we're out, hence the WA. So putting them on a referendum, makes no sense. The parliament wasted a bunch of time on the Political Declaration which isn't anything more than an indication for future negotiations but not binding on the outcome.
The parliament have 3 options at this stage: No-Deal, WA or Revocation. Put those 3 options to the people with indicatives votes. Only instead of requiring a majority, the option with the most votes wins. It's the outcome most people could accept basically.
Last edited:
A second referendum would be an affront to democracy but her deal can have as many votes as it takes to wear people down.
@Josep Dowling this made me chuckle ...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gammon&=true
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gammon&=true
So it's not gonna happen then? Ever?
It will probably still happen. My guess is towards the end of the year.
Sound.
Again, I don't know much about it. I try to avoid the news as much as possible. As a race, we've got enough to be depressed about without the likes of this
Problem is everybody is thinking it will be the question / format they want... exactly like they did when it came to brexit meaning brexit
so lets say hypothetically
no deal gets 49% WA gets 47% and revocation gets 48%
what do we do?... no option has carried over 50% of the vote and two antithetical options have the same votes (hypothetically)
do you rank votes? - compulsory yes or no on options? - order by preference
As I say finding a format that wont be challenged will be difficult
perhaps a 2 part referendum - leave or remain (and if leave then no deal or WA)
but again you would then have people arguing should only those that choose leave get to pick how we leave or should remain voters get a say... it will be complex
There was recently a 2 part referendum in a US town about striping a mayor of his job because of finance issues (he spent his election funds on holidays or something)
part one should mr X be mayor Yes or No
around 70% voted no and 30% yes
If No wins the 2nd part was who should be mayor
MR A
Mrs B
Ms C
Mr D
Dr E
Mr X
and the votes split out something like
MR A 10%
Mrs B 20%
Ms C 5%
Mr D 10%
Dr E 25%
Mr X 30%
Result Mr X is stripped of being the Mayor.... Mr X is sworn in as the new Mayor
Structuring the question is important
Personally, I'm expecting it to be taken seriously if it happens. So I think everyone, bar the no deal Brexiters will get the questions that they want.
I mean what are the options? At this point in time its either to remain, or to leave with no deal, or the compromise is some kind of soft Brexit.
Doesn't take a mathematical savant to get people to choose fairly between them...
If we can't even figure out how to ask people what they want then how the feck are we going to solve Brexit
They still don't get it. These guys know nothing about self reflection.
Another brexiteer bites the dust.
tell me the question you would put on the ballot paper then and lets see if everybody thinks its would work?
I believe I said stay or leave, if leave what preference.
Said it a few times on here during this shit show, as have others. Does tend to get ignored though....
Last edited:
If Man Utd beats Barca, then UK remains in the EU.
If Barca wins, then the game is repeated till the result allows UK to remain in the EU.
Deal?
If Barca wins, then the game is repeated till the result allows UK to remain in the EU.
Deal?
If A50 is revoked would we then get our European Commissioner role back immediately or is this Macron proving leavers right?
who gets to vote on the 2nd part?
everybody or only those that picked leave in part one?
You babble too much
On your scenario above we should leave with no deal since it's what the most people would accept. Expecting over 50% is something that only applies in binary questions where over 50% means a de facto majority. But our options are not binary, so you can't ask a binary question. We have 3 options and ultimately have to settle for one, whether it's approved by >50% of the electorate or not. That's the reality.
Also the people are not the parliament, where you need over 50% of votes to pass a legislation by parliamentary law.
It affects everyone mate. It's equivalent to the often suggested May's deal vs No deal (before anyone comes with the "How's that fair?").
Last edited:
Fockinn...jus disnae add up man.
(Attempting to keep interested in this Brexit bollocks)
indeed - but The erg have lawyers the peoples vote have lawyers as does the government, the opposition and many more interested parties... the electoral commission will have to devise a question and at that point lawyers will be lawyers (Having a lawyer on retainer ourselves as a company its surprising how many things you will litigate)... i cant imagine these lawyers wont challenge and question... as I say i dont think it would be a quick process to agree a question / format and I do think it would be a contentious issue... plus then policing the spends, the advertising, would the government be neutral (would parties have official policies or would they allow free campaigning)... it may be the best solution in the long run and it inn theory but it would be a pretty fractious process I think
No deal should not be on any referendum. Government and parlaiment have deemed it unfit and the public can not be allowed to vote against something that breaks the GFA.
Including it would be even worse than calling the referemdum in the first place.
Including it would be even worse than calling the referemdum in the first place.
Standard though isn't it? They will lawyer up and challenge anything. They are beyond hope and I'm being people centric in my outlook... The sooner they/we start taking it seriously the sooner we can act.
Well yeah, but what can you do? Until we put that 51% to bed a people's vote will be contentious. If it's not in the vote then read what @sun_tzu is saying and multiply it...
But I won't argue with you....
i agree - I just feel that whilst some people seem to think a referendum might bring a quick resolution i personally think its going to be something that if they intend to do they will need to start with ASAP to get it done within the potential 9 month / Year extension that seems to be the likely extension proposal from the EU
I agree until the last bit. Under your scenario 33 per cent could vote leave with no deal, 33 leave with the deal, and 34 remain, to claim remain to be the outcome ''most people would accept' is patently false. Single transferable vote would give the majority their first or second preference, which is the best you're going to get.
Bill Cash and his merry band of ERG lawyers have been banging on about this and that being legal or unlawful for nearly a year, on every matter they were wrong and took it no further than soundbites.
We need someone to show leadership and explain why no deal is not going to be a choice. The referendum should be whatever comes out of parliament vs remain, people voted for this parlaiment here's the best it could come up with so do you want it
Yea agreed. I'm not as optimistic as I may sound but... One can hope.
Let's see how it goes. Would be nice though
The fact you're using an example of 33-33-34 (which totals 100%) tells me that you possibly didn't understand exactly what I proposed.
It's not a single choice vote, it's an indicative vote. You vote yes or no to each of three. Possibly all 3 if you're cool with that, or only one option if that's your only acceptable preference. So the total (blanks excluded) would be above 100%
STV is also workable though. Probably fairer too.