The most ridiculous problem with the whole Con,Lab, Referendum ,General Election is that the referendum was put in motion by a Tory Government. The parts of the country that voted "leave" were mostly Labour strongholds but for the ref they supported the Tory exit policy. When it came to the GE old problems & allegiances resurfaced through concern over domestic policies & denied the Government a Brexit working majority. I think if Labour had been the party in government that proposed the Brexit referendum then followed up with a GE they would have had a landslide victory. A working majority would not have been a problem & i am sure negotiations would have been much clearer & probably shorter.

Firstly, the election that was called was because of the change of Prime Minister. Labour were ranting on about having another election because she was a new Prime Minister and the Tories had therefor not been elected under this new regime, she didn't need to but as you say she thought she could crush Labour.

There is a lot about what goes on in the commons that I don't agree with trust me, however, unlike you I don't scream.
I am surprised how on earth she can bring something back that has overwhelmingly been defeated not once but twice its totally pathetic. The speaker of the house could stop her bringing it back but obviously has chosen not to why I don't know, there was also an amendment last night to stop her bringing it back, but once Corbyns amendment was defeated he withdrew it, maybe because we have absolutely nowhere else to go or he knew it would get defeated.

All the above is how our democratic system seems to work, she is obviously doing nothing wrong but I fail to see how. With the possibility of another referendum I have also heard the claims with regards civil unrest it is a possibility but I hope not. peaceful demonstration yes.

You say "that the true colours of the Brexiteers are really on show with their threats of civil unrest" you also refer to ME as being part of some "Brexit Militia" can you explain please
I don't put all remainers in the same box so please don't class all Brexiteers the same because even you might be surprised that were not.

The Brexit secretary gave a speech at the dispatch box in the commons last night about the governments proposal and urging members to vote for it, but then went and voted against it himself. What an absolute joke

The result of the referendum was technically only advisory - although that was rarely mentioned before or after, and MPs acted on the advice by triggering article 50, so it doesn’t much matter.

I think it is more a counter to cases where people like JRM bang on about the inviolability of democracy one minute, then switch to legal arguments when it suits their agenda. It just shows it’s a tactic that can cut two ways.

Word for the week: resile. Interesting concept, which cuts two ways as well.

Ideally, the hope is for a Schrodinger’s border that is both there and not there, between the north and south. Hopefully the wizards, poets and people who understand data will sort something out with satellites and quantum computers or something.

However, there’s a real possibility that it won’t happen during the transition period, in which case one of the following would have to happen, and they’re all problematic.

1. There’s no border - not popular with people who want the UK to have its own independent trade policy and regulatory autonomy, because it prevents that. Under the current deal this is the backstop, but there are two more backstop/final decision options
2. There is a border between north and south - not popular with people who don’t want to see a return to conflict in the six counties, and arguably a breach of the UK’s responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement. Everybody, pretty much, hates this option (hence the backstop as it stands), but it remains the default if we have no deal
3. A border in the Irish Sea or on this side of it. This is unpopular with unionists (the most dyed in the wool of whom currently hold the balance of power in Westminster), because it creates divisions within the UK and (arguably) edges a united Ireland closer (not that the Republic of Ireland could afford the cost of the North joining them as things stand - its not quite as extreme as Korean reunification would be, but it’d be difficult, maybe like West and East Germany).

Any use?

Labour hate the deal because many of their remainder supporters hate it. And even brexiters have been negative about it too. Supporting it has no political upside to it. They’re as trapped by divisions in their voter base as the tories are by divisions among their MPs. So, if I was being very generous, i’d ‘credit’ them with constructive ambiguity. Poor effort overall, imo.

May’s deal is what you’d expect given her red lines. If somebody agrees with her red lines, I think that from their POV it is a perfectly reasonable outcome. It does come with the border backstop issue, and that requires a difficult choice. Whatever approach we’d taken would have required difficult choices, tbf.

How I understand it. Although we had a referendum the government were under no obligation to actually act on it. They would have been pretty stupid not to (which says a lot with this lot at the moment) and would have probably been political suicide, apart from trying to justify the millions it cost to conduct it in the first place.

It's strange that a 2nd EU referendum 3 years after the first is so controversial, but yet, MPs can vote on exactly the same deal 3 times in 6 weeks.

As I mentioned in a previous post, its not a right to bring it back, it is down to the speaker giving permission to do so. Its normally if it has been changed in some way, so like you I'm a bit confused over this one, not sure of the justification to be fair maybe someone more knowledgeable on these matters ??.

They do a similar thing between the commons and the Lords called ping pong, where it bounces back and too between the two houses but there are normally some amendments.

I guess the referendum had 2 specific options, in theory at least (I'll come back to that though), whereas the MPs vote was to accept May's deal or not, without a specific alternative. Meaningful vote 3 will have an alternative of sorts - delay and rethink. Therefore, I don't there should be any excuse for a meaningful vote 4 without a general election first.

On that first point, there is a case that Leave begged the questions 'go where?' and 'how?', and so it gives the impression of offering a clear direction initially but then, as you approach the door you realise it is pretty limited.

The problem is/was that Leave could only win by offering a very broad image of what Brexit [icould be[/i, but the reality of what it [iwill be[/i has to be much narrower and so inevitably has narrower appeal.

Although you may be right, I think the failure of May's deal thus far has more to do with different factions in the Tory Party getting ready for life after May (Mrs), coupled with the lack of a parliamentary majority.
IF the "strong and stable" election had produced the Tory majority that May had hoped for and had not there been a high court challenge to ensure the meaningful vote, we would definitely have been leaving.
As far as a second referendum goes, it just wont solve anything.
There is NOTHING to suggest that opinions have changed significantly since the first vote and most peoples views have become more entrenched, which would ensure a more embittered campaign and deeper divisions in an already divided nation.

Bang on the money, people playing politics when tbey should be voting the way their constituents want.

I don’t want another referendum of any sort. Though, as we have seen, saying what you don’t want is easier for everybody than saying what you do want.

However, I do think a confirmatory referendum on May’s deal would be interesting. Which isn’t necessarily the same as desirable. While Leave won a majority, I don’t think there’s a majority for any particular type of Brexit. The majority of leavers prefer a WTO max-brexit, whereas, if forced to choose, most remainers would go for something like Norway, I imagine. May’s deal sits, widely unloved in polarised Britain, somewhere between them - though much closer to the former, imo. It’s something we could unite behind in mutual disappointment. However, I do think brexiters have to take ownership of it - they’ve got most of what they wanted and what isn’t there is down to reality rather than anything remotely resembling compromise. As a remoaner, i’m entitled to moan - it’s my loser’s consolation and constitutional right, duty even, to blame everything on the ‘failed Brexit experiment’ from April onwards, so I can’t do it for them!

Tbf, ballers gonna ball.

Also, to this point, voting in line with their constituents wishes wouldn’t have delivered a majority because too many options remained on the table.

No deal, May’s deal, Labour’s suggested deal du jour, another referendum - all have only minority support.

Only now it has narrowed down to two choices (if you can even call delay a choice) is a majority feasible. For better or worse, May has run down the clock. It stinks a bit, but maybe it was the only way.