Hard Brexit or Hard Brexit

[pErvinalia]

That's because you have a Canuck-Franco mindset. More amenable to the enlightened Anglo-Dutch mindset.

[Scot Dutchy]

I love the Netherlands from what I’ve seen of it. Not so much some (well one) of its inhabitants.

I am not that bad. When you come I will take you out for great meal.

[Brian Peacock]

'Corrupt' Vote Leave campaign undermines Brexit vote, court told

The “corrupt and illegal practices” of the Vote Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum undermine the validity of the decision to leave the EU, the high court has been told.

Relying on findings made by the Electoral Commission about overspending by the pro-Brexit campaign, British expatriates living in Europe have launched a legal bid, arguing the referendum result should in effect be set aside.

“Breaches of spending rules are serious offences that vitiate the referendum result,” Jessica Simor QC, for the claimants, told the court. “Corruption and illegality in the course of an election or referendum must have a consequence. Corruption and illegal practices undermine the rule of law and democracy.”

There was significant overspending, data breaches and possibly Russian involvement in the referendum, she said. “The electorate can no longer be expected to respect the result.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... court-told

Along with the Russian-backed data-hacking controversy (which targeted potential Leave voters with scare stories about immigrant levels, crime, and health tourism etc while targeting potential Remain voters with stories about Remain was a forgone conclusion and there was no need to go and vote if it was raining etc) the seemingly willful financial shenanigans of Vote Leave strengthen calls for a second referendum. The Labour Party seem to be leaning that way too now, though not without opposition...

John McDonnell rejects union warning over second referendum

John McDonnell has rejected warnings from Len McCluskey, the Unite leader, that Labour members would see support for a second Brexit referendum as a betrayal, adding that in a choice between Theresa May’s deal and staying in the EU he would vote remain.

McCluskey, who wields substantial influence in the party, told a group of Labour MPs this week that they could alienate supporters by backing a fresh referendum, and urged them to stick to Labour’s alternative Brexit plan.

Asked during a visit to Glasgow on Friday whether he agreed with McCluskey, McDonnell said: “No.”

The shadow chancellor said if there were a second referendum it was “inevitable” that the choice for voters would be remain versus Theresa May’s deal, adding: “And if it was, I would vote remain.”

He said: “I think if we get to a situation where we’d tried everything and we have tried everything … We’re doing our best. My speech yesterday [in the Commons] was a sincere attempt to try and bring all parties together to try and agree a Brexit which will protect jobs and the economy.

“If we can’t get that, we need a general election because we can then change the team that will then do the negotiations. If we can’t do that, well, I think people will recognise we have no other option but to consider another public vote and people will respect us for doing our best to implement the spirit of the referendum.

“We’ve got to resolve this issue. We can’t go on like this.”...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum

Many protestations over the prospect of a second referendum, a so-called 'People's vote', coalesce around the view that it undermines 'the will of the people' expressed in the first vote, and therefore undermine British democracy - but only, it seems, if it changes the result of the first ballot.

I don't see how another ballot, which would now take place against more specific and focused issues than proven lies about extra cash for the NHS or that a 'tsunami' of immigrants are responsible for stagnating wages, job insecurity, difficulties in getting a doctor's appointment or undermining 'British culture' etc etc, would be any more or less democratic than the first.

Now, under the UK's hotch-potch constitutional arrangement there's a lot of flexibility about how a second referendum could be structured and organised. It could be run on the basis of seeking a simple majority on a simple yes'no question like the fist, or on a super majority, or require a certain percentage of the electoral turnout, or voting could be made compulsory, or it could address a number of options rather than a yes/no by single transferable votes, or whatever. The options on the ballot could be drawn up by a citizen's council, or a Ministerial department, a cross-party committee, or by a single individual like the Prime Minister. Campaigning could be limited in terms of time, advertising and/or resources, or all limits on campaign finances could be put aside.

There really is no constitutional reason why a second referendum should have to be one thing or another. Whatever form it took, if the political will was there it could certainly provide a more accurate, independent canvassing of 'the will of the people' than before.

[Sean Hayden]

So, is this like a cross my heart, hope to die, won't make the same mistake again kind of thing or what?

[Rum]

The fear is where does one stop with this if it is another relatively close run thing. Suppose it is 52 - 48% remain - the reverse of last time? The Brexiteers will be clamoring for a third referendum in that scenario...and I'm not actually sure 'remain' would win this time around in any case.

If May's government collapses, which it may well do if she doesn't get the present bill through then it is all up for grabs. An election? Maybe except Labour aren't giving a lead either. A referendum - well maybe but it will create havoc despite Mr Peacock's wise and measured words.

I noticed today, as an aside, that the long life milk shelf in the supermarket I was in was getting on the low side. Coincidence?

[Scot Dutchy]

This the whole point. So the UK has a 2nd ref and it goes to remain. Do the Brexiteers accept it? Will the EU accept it. What would the UK's position after it? Will the UK be allowed to reverse and just go back to its old position. Who is paying for the cost of Brexit? The UK started it.

[cronus]

One thing is certain now. Hard Brexit.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well it is very much looking that way. It is what the Brexiteers want; chaos.

[Sean Hayden]

[cronus]

Dream of the young left and right to be in a revolution or something, anything chaotic where molotovs get thrown around. I'm in my fifties. Can be doing without interesting times on my doorstep.

[Brian Peacock]

So, is this like a cross my heart, hope to die, won't make the same mistake again kind of thing or what?

Nobody knows. It could still go either way. However, I do think that many Leavers are becoming as concerned as Remainers at the prospect of a clean-break, no-deal Brext - which is preferred by the Conservative Party hardcore: The Brexitarians. People didn't vote for deeper auterity and economic depression, they voted for a more secure and prosperous future because all that was making them poorer and insecure was laid at the feet of the UKs membership of the EU.

[Brian Peacock]

The fear is where does one stop with this if it is another relatively close run thing. Suppose it is 52 - 48% remain - the reverse of last time? The Brexiteers will be clamoring for a third referendum in that scenario...and I'm not actually sure 'remain' would win this time around in any case.

If May's government collapses, which it may well do if she doesn't get the present bill through then it is all up for grabs. An election? Maybe except Labour aren't giving a lead either. A referendum - well maybe but it will create havoc despite Mr Peacock's wise and measured words.

I noticed today, as an aside, that the long life milk shelf in the supermarket I was in was getting on the low side. Coincidence?

I understand the worries about further opening the wounds that the last referendum exposed, but my point is that a second referendum could settle the matter properly. For example, a 'People's vote' could progress on the basis of a 2/3rds majority to overturn the previous result.

[JimC]

Brian, do you really think two thirds would vote for that? Seems a hard target to me...

[Brian Peacock]

At this point I don't think it's about creating a second referendum that assures a particular outcome - I think it would have to be about giving us a clear signal of our collective intent. The first referendum was so close, and campaigns so bitter and disconnected from reality, that I fear without some sort of clear signal the country could remain divided and politically polarised for at least a generation. So yeah, I think something like a legal requirement for all adults to vote and a two-thirds majority would give the losing side some comfort that their view was heard but that the majority of the nation want to go the other way. One has to remember that given the UKs unique constitutional settlement, and without an obligation to stick to EU rules on things like democratic institutions, workers and human rights, levels of benefit, health outcomes, investment in infrastructure, agriculture, research and development in the sciences, etc, a post-Brexit Britain could slip into a very dark place very quickly - particularly if the Rees-Moggs and Duncan-Smiths are given room to make the world outside their heads match the world inside. The only way to avoid that is to give the population ownership of the result - which is something that is absent at the moment.

[Scot Dutchy]

A two thirds majority should have been applied to the first one as well. This is a constitutional matter. Changing a constitution requires in most countries a two thirds majority whether in a referendum or in government.