Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:56 pm

summitclaret wrote:I tell you what let them force us to revoke. A GE will follow once May goes and any party committing to leave properly next time will smash it

When the country was split 52-48 why would any paty committing to leave properly get any more than 52% of the populations votes?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:03 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:“G
But 235 Tory MPs voted against the Customs Union amendment. The Tories are the sitting government. This is the most important bill for decades. So, do I think May’s deal is closer to being approved than the Customs Union despite what you say above? Yes.
.

Let's look at it from the other angle.
Given that no deal only got 160 votes, how many more votes do you think there would likely to be voting against a CU if it comes forward again next week, and where would they come from?
I don't see the number voting against a CU rising very much. Most of those who didn't vote were "remainers".
Bear in mind, only 1 Lib Dem voted for the CU option, and the SNP didn't vote for it either, nor did most of the new "independent group" They all voted for "People's Vote" and / or revoke, so if it comes down to "No deal" or Clarke's option they will obviously vote for the latter.
There were 33 Tories who supported Clarke's option, and they aren't going to suddenly vote for "no deal". That's more than enough to see Clarke over the line, and don't forget the cabinet abstained, and there aren't a large number in there who would vote for "no deal" if it came down to it.
So, to summarise:
There are 314 Conservative MPs. 265 in total voted last night, so there are roughly 49 who didn't. Even if 30 of the 49 were to vote against Clarke, that would only take the total to 302, and I very much doubt that in a run-off 302 MPs would back "no deal" in any event.
But let's say they got 302, they would still almost certainly lose because the number of SNP, Libs, independents etc. who didn't vote with Clarke last night totals over 50, (potentially 318+), so unless just about every Conservative that didn't vote last night voted against the CU, it would pass.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:03 pm

I’d like to ask a question to Dennis Skinner as to why, given that he hates the Tories as much as any living MP, voted for no deal yesterday.

I’m genuinely interested in his answer, because I suspect the answer may not be far from Corbyn’s true beliefs too.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:07 pm

This was another interpretation of the voting which appears quite telling (although I'm not convinced about 2nd referendum being in the CU section).

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:08 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Let's look at it from the other angle.
Given that no deal only got 160 votes, how many more votes do you think there would likely to be voting against a CU if it comes forward again next week, and where would they come from?
I don't see the number voting against a CU rising very much. Most of those who didn't vote were "remainers".
Bear in mind, only 1 Lib Dem voted for the CU option, and the SNP didn't vote for it either, nor did most of the new "independent group" They all voted for "People's Vote" and / or revoke, so if it comes down to "No deal" or Clarke's option they will obviously vote for the latter.
There were 33 Tories who supported Clarke's option, and they aren't going to suddenly vote for "no deal". That's more than enough to see Clarke over the line, and don't forget the cabinet abstained, and there aren't a large number in there who would vote for "no deal" if it came down to it.
So, to summarise:
There are 314 Conservative MPs. 265 in total voted last night, so there are roughly 49 who didn't. Even if 30 of the 49 were to vote against Clarke, that would only take the total to 302, and I very much doubt that in a run-off 302 MPs would back "no deal" in any event.
But let's say they got 302, they would still almost certainly lose because the number of SNP, Libs, independents etc. who didn't vote with Clarke last night totals over 50, (potentially 318+), so unless just about every Conservative that didn't vote last night voted against the CU, it would pass.

It wont be up against bo deal on Monday though. The tories will surely whip against it and ditto referendum.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:09 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Cheers.

You really do need to do some research on stuff. It would help your argument immensely......well it wouldn't, but you might not make it in the first place.

Learnt about Operation Stack yet?

Just because they talk about it, doesn't make it reality. What part of that dont you want to undetstand.

You read about the 15 billion emergency budget, did it happen?

You read about the 500-750,000 job losses, did it happen?

You read about the £4,300 it was going to cost each household in Britain , did it happen?

All of these stories and Operation Stack, are designed to scare people into toeing the line re the EU. It doesn't make them facts.

You still haven't answered my argument either, surprise surprise, why should the British public compromise with the HOC?

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:12 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Let's look at it from the other angle.
Given that no deal only got 160 votes, how many more votes do you think there would likely to be voting against a CU if it comes forward again next week, and where would they come from?
I don't see the number voting against a CU rising very much. Most of those who didn't vote were "remainers".
Bear in mind, only 1 Lib Dem voted for the CU option, and the SNP didn't vote for it either, nor did most of the new "independent group" They all voted for "People's Vote" and / or revoke, so if it comes down to "No deal" or Clarke's option they will obviously vote for the latter.
There were 33 Tories who supported Clarke's option, and they aren't going to suddenly vote for "no deal". That's more than enough to see Clarke over the line, and don't forget the cabinet abstained, and there aren't a large number in there who would vote for "no deal" if it came down to it.
So, to summarise:
There are 314 Conservative MPs. 265 in total voted last night, so there are roughly 49 who didn't. Even if 30 of the 49 were to vote against Clarke, that would only take the total to 302, and I very much doubt that in a run-off 302 MPs would back "no deal" in any event.
But let's say they got 302, they would still almost certainly lose because the number of SNP, Libs, independents etc. who didn't vote with Clarke last night totals over 50, (potentially 318+), so unless just about every Conservative that didn't vote last night voted against the CU, it would pass.

I agree that a few Remainers would add to it if their preferred option didn’t happen (e.g. e.g. Lammy).

But the whole Cabinet abstained. By definition, if they were whipped, they would all vote against (the ones who would have resigned have already done so). I know you mentioned this, but I don’t see it as a “no deal vs CU” issue. I agree CU would win in that scenario. More likely many would take a 12 month extension, new leader, election, rip up and start again rather than a CU which many of us think is the stupidest thing Parliament has suggested in 20 years, a vote for decline.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:14 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I’d like to ask a question to Dennis Skinner as to why, given that he hates the Tories as much as any living MP, voted for no deal yesterday..

Most likely because he's consistently adopted that stance over a long period of time? He's not the sort of politician to compromise on his long-held beliefs.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:18 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I agree that a few Remainers would add to it if their preferred option didn’t happen (e.g. e.g. Lammy).

.

But as I already pointed out, it's not just a few, it's over 50.
Assuming revoke and People's Vote are removed from the equation on Monday, the ardent remainers will compromise on the next softest option.
Do you honestly think that the 35 SNP MPs would simply abstain if their preferred option was no longer on the table?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:22 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:Just because they talk about it, doesn't make it reality. What part of that dont you want to undetstand.

You read about the 15 billion emergency budget, did it happen?

You read about the 500-750,000 job losses, did it happen?

You read about the £4,300 it was going to cost each household in Britain , did it happen?

All of these stories and Operation Stack, are designed to scare people into toeing the line re the EU. It doesn't make them facts.

You still haven't answered my argument either, surprise surprise, why should the British public compromise with the HOC?

Operation Stack exists, and is used about ten times a year you absolute spoon. How much more of a "fact" do you want?

Brock and the other one (parking at Manston airfield) are planned for because Operation Stack is the storm version. They most definitely exist.

And you are still talking as if the 17.4 million voting exactly for what you wanted. That arrogance backed up by a refusal to accept reality is a potent mix.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:33 pm

summitclaret wrote:It wont be up against bo deal on Monday though. The tories will surely whip against it and ditto referendum.

So tell us.
What do you think the narrowed down options are likely to be on Monday?
I'm willing to bet that even though No deal only got 160 votes last night it will still be on the table, and as Clarke's proposal was the nearest to succeeding I'll be amazed if that doesn't remain on the table as well.
And I'm not sure why you keep referring to "whipping" since it's been clear for weeks now that when it comes to brexit votes MPs simply ignore it.
(As I said 33 rebels for Clarke last night).

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:35 pm

Huffington Post reporting that a GE might be called if they can't get this through.

A GE specifically designed to sort out this mess, when both parties are split on this will solve nothing and could well make it worse.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:42 pm

May's withdrawal agreement plus customs union guarantee in the political declaration would get through.

So, why don't they just go for it ?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:44 pm

Mala591 wrote:May's withdrawal agreement plus customs union guarantee in the political declaration would get through.

So, why don't they just go for it ?

Basically because it crosses May's red lines, and she has procrastinated and refused to discuss anything else for 2 years.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:46 pm

Spijed wrote:When the country was split 52-48 why would any paty committing to leave properly get any more than 52% of the populations votes?

You don't need anything like 52% to get a good majority

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:49 pm

summitclaret wrote:You don't need anything like 52% to get a good majority

Would 48% be enough?

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:49 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Basically because it crosses May's red lines, and she has procrastinated and refused to discuss anything else for 2 years.

Quite right she has. She is sticking up for the referendum outcome.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:53 pm

summitclaret wrote:You don't need anything like 52% to get a good majority

Even so, the country is split pretty much down the middle so it's unlikely much will change and we'll end up with another hung parliament..

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:53 pm

Confused where we are? (Be honest, we all don't have the cold iron certainty that Colburn has that everything is exactly like he wants it)

This helpful thread will put your mind at ease (unless you are Colburn, in which you'll just go off on one)

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 6069978112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:01 pm

summitclaret wrote:Quite right she has. She is sticking up for the referendum outcome.

Except as has been referred to on this very page, the result was 52% to 48%, not a landslide, so she should have been looking at how she could bring the country back together, rather than adopting a "winner takes all" strategy that has deepened divisions.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:08 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:As usual you miss the point completely.

If there were any compromises to be made, they should be between Britain and the EU. Not between the British public and the HOC.
Who the hell do they think they are, dont tell us what you want, we'll tell you what's good for you....

Colburn_Claret wrote:...why should the British public compromise with the HOC?

I suggest you read up on parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy. It might stop you coming out with rubbish like this.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:08 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:So tell us.
What do you think the narrowed down options are likely to be on Monday?
I'm willing to bet that even though No deal only got 160 votes last night it will still be on the table, and as Clarke's proposal was the nearest to succeeding I'll be amazed if that doesn't remain on the table as well.
And I'm not sure why you keep referring to "whipping" since it's been clear for weeks now that when it comes to brexit votes MPs simply ignore it.
(As I said 33 rebels for Clarke last night).

CU, Labour's unicorn and confirmatory referendum. The Government will aim to avoid anything getting a majority.
Anything combined with a referendum has no chance.

If there were free votes for all a soft brexit would get through because there is approx 2/3rds majority of remainer mps as opposed to approx 2/3 rds the other way based on constituencies.

I think a soft Brexit could get quite close to a majority but if the government is to survive much longer they have avoid losing.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:12 pm

Peston is confused

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1111314646357692416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm officially lost.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:14 pm

summitclaret wrote:CU, Labour's unicorn and confirmatory referendum. The Government will aim to avoid anything getting a majority.
Anything combined with a referendum has no chance.

If there were free votes for all a soft brexit would get through because there is approx 2/3rds majority of remainer mps as opposed to approx 2/3 rds the other way based on constituencies.

I think a soft Brexit could get quite close to a majority but if the government is to survive much longer they have avoid losing.

Why would they aim to avoid anything getting a majority? It’s the last chance saloon for the withdrawal agreement tomorrow. If it is defeated again they have to start supporting an alternative or it’s no deal.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:18 pm

martin_p wrote:Why would they aim to avoid anything getting a majority? It’s the last chance saloon for the withdrawal agreement tomorrow. If it is defeated again they have to start supporting an alternative or it’s no deal.

If the WA fails its long extension request and a new tory leader and maybe a GE. its never a CU

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:21 pm

summitclaret wrote:CU, Labour's unicorn and confirmatory referendum. The Government will aim to avoid anything getting a majority.
Anything combined with a referendum has no chance.

.

Might have got this wrong, but I didn't think it was the government who were in charge of narrowing it down? Parliament voted to take charge of this process last week, and I don't think that the executive will get to choose which proposals go forward on Monday, (all this assumes of course that the May deal doesn't go through in the meantime - which it might).
Bearing in mind that Margaret Becket's "Confirmatory public vote" proposal was actually the most popular choice last night,(268 votes), some motion that combined a Customs Union or leaving with no deal with the choice to be put to a referendum might actually stand a good chance of passing.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:26 pm

I didn't say anything about the executive deciding rhe options for Monday..

Dont you see that adding a referendum lessens the chances of a CU. Only 8 tories voted for a referendum and that was on a free vote. Many more labs did not vote for one.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:28 pm

If the WA is voted down tomorrow, that means EU elections, that is if the EU allow us.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:29 pm

Yup

See PD Foster thread bit further up.

Some confusion about the leave date still though.

But the numbers are still not there, even with the DUP.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:36 pm

It won't get through. This is partly about smoking Labour out particularly on a referendum in a meaningful vote.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:37 pm

MP's (particularly labour) are playing politics if they vote against the WA, They can shape the non binding political declaration later.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:42 pm

summitclaret wrote:I didn't say anything about the executive deciding rhe options for Monday..

Dont you see that adding a referendum lessens the chances of a CU. Only 8 tories voted for a referendum and that was on a free vote. Many more labs did not vote for one.

Well it read to me as though that's what you were saying:

"CU, Labour's unicorn and confirmatory referendum. The Government will aim to avoid anything getting a majority."

I took that to mean that they were the 3 that the executive would select.
Anyway, I disagree that adding a referendum lessens the chance of CU.
If it becomes pretty clear that CU is going to carry the day on Monday, then surely a large number of "leave" MPs would say, "ok, we'll support an amendment to this that gives the people chance to choose between this CU Brexit and "no deal".
It would be their final chance of getting the brexit they actually wanted, (or as you would say "voted for")

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:45 pm

As if there would be such a referendum. Can you imagine the remainer outcry if there was a referendum without a remain option.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:50 pm

Anyway there are not that many wanting no deal. Many more tory mps want a free trade deal - a proper Brexit. I have never been a member if a political party but I want a free trade deal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:52 pm

Lab voting against it.

Bill Cash ranting away on Radio Five with exactly the same speech he gives every time he's on.

Fair play to Tony Livesay who told him to send in a tape next time.

I actually agree with a lot of what Cash says, but the deal is better than a "No Deal"

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:57 pm

Its obvious now that we have to have a GE. The only other option is a referendum on May's deal yes or no. No remain option.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:58 pm

summitclaret wrote:As if there would be such a referendum. Can you imagine the remainer outcry if there was a referendum without a remain option.

Along with (I think) the vast majority of remainers I would certainly go along with that outcome at this stage. There has to be consensus in order to end the stalemate.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:00 pm

Greenmile wrote:I suggest you read up on parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy. It might stop you coming out with rubbish like this.

How is it rubbish.
They are public servants. They are supposed to serve the public.
In a normal day they run on manifesto presented to the public and majority rules.
This isn't a normal day. They absolved themselves of any authority when they decided on the referendum. They all agreed to abide by the result of that referendum.
Even though that result doesn't suit you, or many of them, doesn't give them the right to try and take back control of something they washed their hands of.
By their actions, and by their words pre and post referendum, they need to deliver on their promises.
The 17.4 million , whether you or they agree with them, have right on their side. This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap.

If they had the right to do this, then what was the point of the referendum in the first place. Why put the country through 3 years of hell, bitter in fighting, scare mongering, threats, families falling out, uncertainty in businesses on both sides of the channel and for what? What did they do to for if they were only going to undermine the result because it didn't suit them. Is it some kind of sick game. You can add as many wrongs together as you like it will never make it right.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:14 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote: Who the hell do they think they are, dont tell us what you want, we'll tell you what's good for you.

The EU offered us a shite deal, and you seriously want to offer them a deal that they haven't even asked for.

Given each parties “red lines” what sort of deal were you expecting?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:20 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:How is it rubbish.
They are public servants. They are supposed to serve the public.
In a normal day they run on manifesto presented to the public and majority rules.
This isn't a normal day. They absolved themselves of any authority when they decided on the referendum. They all agreed to abide by the result of that referendum.
Even though that result doesn't suit you, or many of them, doesn't give them the right to try and take back control of something they washed their hands of.
By their actions, and by their words pre and post referendum, they need to deliver on their promises.
The 17.4 million , whether you or they agree with them, have right on their side. This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap.

If they had the right to do this, then what was the point of the referendum in the first place. Why put the country through 3 years of hell, bitter in fighting, scare mongering, threats, families falling out, uncertainty in businesses on both sides of the channel and for what? What did they do to for if they were only going to undermine the result because it didn't suit them. Is it some kind of sick game. You can add as many wrongs together as you like it will never make it right.

Parliament is sovereign, and MPs that make up parliament are our representatives, not just delegates. They are not supposed to just do what you / we / “the people” want, but what they feel is for the best. It’s their job to know and understand this stuff better than the man on the street (although the current lot are clearly terrible at their jobs, granted).

This is pretty basic stuff, and if you can’t understand these fairly simple concepts then I struggle to take you seriously.

Note that none of the above is me saying any politician should be taking any particular course of action. I’m just trying to explain why saying stuff like “This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap” makes you sound ridiculous. Like it or not, in our system, the HoC is in charge.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:20 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:How is it rubbish.
They are public servants. They are supposed to serve the public.
In a normal day they run on manifesto presented to the public and majority rules.
This isn't a normal day. They absolved themselves of any authority when they decided on the referendum. They all agreed to abide by the result of that referendum.
Even though that result doesn't suit you, or many of them, doesn't give them the right to try and take back control of something they washed their hands of.
By their actions, and by their words pre and post referendum, they need to deliver on their promises.
The 17.4 million , whether you or they agree with them, have right on their side. This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap.

If they had the right to do this, then what was the point of the referendum in the first place. Why put the country through 3 years of hell, bitter in fighting, scare mongering, threats, families falling out, uncertainty in businesses on both sides of the channel and for what? What did they do to for if they were only going to undermine the result because it didn't suit them. Is it some kind of sick game. You can add as many wrongs together as you like it will never make it right.

They serve the public they aren’t beholden to them. Parliamentary Democracy means that the decisions of one Government (Cameron) cannot bind a future Government (May or Corbyn). MPs represent everyone in their constituency not just the majority and they are elected to use their best judgment.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:58 pm

Burnley Ace wrote: MPs represent everyone in their constituency not just the majority and they are elected to use their best judgment.

Yes, and as I've pointed out before this includes everyone under 18 and all those others who aren't able to vote for whatever reason.
e.g. part of their constituency work might involve helping asylum seekers or other non-UK citizens.
They might also give particular weight to certain factors that are key to the constituency's prosperity such as employment and future growth.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:55 pm

Greenmile wrote:Parliament is sovereign, and MPs that make up parliament are our representatives, not just delegates. They are not supposed to just do what you / we / “the people” want, but what they feel is for the best. It’s their job to know and understand this stuff better than the man on the street (although the current lot are clearly terrible at their jobs, granted).

This is pretty basic stuff, and if you can’t understand these fairly simple concepts then I struggle to take you seriously.

It's not just a matter of understanding the concept. It's that for some of us, the suggested "ignore the referendum because it's advisory" is so far beyond the level of deceit expected from politicians that it defies understanding.

This is what some people are suggesting - that even when the governing party has offered a referendum as part of its manifesto, and MPs of all sides have agreed to hold it, and that the Prime Minister has unequivocally said that the result will be enacted, and no-one has contradicted him - that after the event, MPs should stand up and explain that this referendum was only offered on the basis that it would vote Remain, and since the result was wrong, it will be disregarded.

As has been stated, MPs are legally entitled to do that. But morally? To some of us, the depths of deceit involved in that policy are so enormous that it's hard to get our heads round.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:01 pm

dsr wrote:It's not just a matter of understanding the concept. It's that for some of us, the suggested "ignore the referendum because it's advisory" is so far beyond the level of deceit expected from politicians that it defies understanding.

This is what some people are suggesting - that even when the governing party has offered a referendum as part of its manifesto, and MPs of all sides have agreed to hold it, and that the Prime Minister has unequivocally said that the result will be enacted, and no-one has contradicted him - that after the event, MPs should stand up and explain that this referendum was only offered on the basis that it would vote Remain, and since the result was wrong, it will be disregarded.

As has been stated, MPs are legally entitled to do that. But morally? To some of us, the depths of deceit involved in that policy are so enormous that it's hard to get our heads round.

You’re arguing against a strawman (again!). The only point I was making was, given the facts of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, statements like “This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap” are self-evidently nonsensical.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:01 pm

summitclaret wrote:I didn't say anything about the executive deciding rhe options for Monday..

Dont you see that adding a referendum lessens the chances of a CU. Only 8 tories voted for a referendum and that was on a free vote. Many more labs did not vote for one.

Margaret Beckett's "confirmatory referendum" is a lie - or at least, a misunderstanding of what "confirmatory" means. It the point is to confirm what was meant by the first referendum, then it doesn't make sense. It was a Yes/No question, and the answer was No. She wants to "confirm" whether by "No", did we mean "Yes" or did we mean "Compromise between Yes and No". That's nonsense.

A case could be made for a confirmatory referendum between "Compromise (May or otherwise") and "No Deal". Not necessarily a good case, but certainly a case could be made. But Margaret Beckett is simply after a repeat referendum but with a flat "No" taken off the list.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:02 pm

Greenmile wrote:You’re arguing against a strawman (again!). The only point I was making was, given the facts of parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy, statements like “This idea that the public need to compromise with the HOC is utter crap” are self-evidently nonsensical.

It's not a strawman. I'm not saying that you yourself have argued that the referendum is advisory and can be ignored; but plenty of people on here, have. My post could be used to answer any of them; but it also has relevance to your comments IMO.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:08 pm

dsr wrote:It's not a strawman. I'm not saying that you yourself have argued that the referendum is advisory and can be ignored; but plenty of people on here, have. My post could be used to answer any of them; but it also has relevance to your comments IMO.

It’s a fact that the referendum is advisory and can be ignored. There’s no argument to be had there. Unless you want to argue that black is white.

The question is whether it should be ignored, and you won’t find many folk arguing for that (ie that we should revoke article 50 without a further referendum or any intention of re-invoking it again).

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:29 pm

dsr wrote:It's not a strawman. I'm not saying that you yourself have argued that the referendum is advisory and can be ignored; but plenty of people on here, have. My post could be used to answer any of them; but it also has relevance to your comments IMO.

Good luck in finding a poster who has said the referendum result should be ignored. You’re making stuff up.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:33 pm

dsr wrote:Margaret Beckett's "confirmatory referendum" is a lie - or at least, a misunderstanding of what "confirmatory" means. It the point is to confirm what was meant by the first referendum, then it doesn't make sense. It was a Yes/No question, and the answer was No. She wants to "confirm" whether by "No", did we mean "Yes" or did we mean "Compromise between Yes and No". That's nonsense.

A case could be made for a confirmatory referendum between "Compromise (May or otherwise") and "No Deal". Not necessarily a good case, but certainly a case could be made. But Margaret Beckett is simply after a repeat referendum but with a flat "No" taken off the list.

Read the amendment, you’ll know what it means then.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:35 pm

dsr wrote:Margaret Beckett's "confirmatory referendum" is a lie - or at least, a misunderstanding of what "confirmatory" means. It the point is to confirm what was meant by the first referendum, then it doesn't make sense. It was a Yes/No question, and the answer was No. She wants to "confirm" whether by "No", did we mean "Yes" or did we mean "Compromise between Yes and No". That's nonsense.
.

Have you actually read Becket's "motion" ?:
"That this House will not allow in this Parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a confirmatory public vote".—(Margaret Beckett.)

It doesn't refer to the first referendum at all, and doesn't include any requirement to have a "remain" option on the ballot. It simply says that any proposed deal must be put to the people for confirmation. Hence a "confirmatory" public vote.
What happens if the people were to reject it she doesn't say.
Edit; Martin, you got in before me ... and so much more succinctly!