Absolutely, Its just a pity that such a monumental decission of what form
Brexit should take wasn't done across the two main parties, instead of May just ploughing through her interpretation of what she thought the majority of the people voted for. You will always get dissenters on an issue such as this but I am sure cross party collaboration would have made things much easier.

Paul

How long do you want all this to take Bren and out of interest, do you think Labour would have any of the same issues ?

Corbyn, a lifelong Eurosceptic has no desire to stay in the EU and since he became Labour Leader, has, rather than pinning his colours to either mast (Leave or Remain), has hidden behind sound bites.


Your thoughs on a second referendum simply dont work and with the 3 options that you suggest, you are deliberately splitting the "leave" vote.

As I undersatand it, it takes around 3 months to arrange a General Election and closre to 7 months for a referendum and eve IF, we were to go down that route, we could land right back in the same position that we currently have, albeit another 12 months down the line.

Our elected members should follow the instructions given to them by the electorate instead of "pleaseing them selves" and playing party politics.

I think that you are assuming a Labour victory at a GE but, whichever party wins, the mess remains the same.

I think May saw her chance of a place in history & wanted to take all the credit for a Brexit, despite being against it when she thought Remain would win. Her 10 minute phone call to the Unions a couple of days before the vote sums up how much she thinks of others' views. It's probably why she went with Davis to head DExEU despite him being thick as 2 short planks; knowing he would never steal the glory.

Agreed mate, on an earlier post of yours a do agree that people voted to either leave or remain for all sorts of different reasons and it does wind me up when politician try to say what people voted for. With regards voting in ignorance to a certain extent that is true again for both sides of the debate, however, I voted to leave for many different reasons but mainly because of freedom of movement (Not immigration as a whole its sometimes portrayed) and that and my other reasons remain. One thing I was you could say ":was ignorant about" was the Irish border, but I feel that has been over complicated in my opinion.

Paul

They should, and I'm not a fan of another referendum - unless there was a clear and significant change in public opinion, and there's no evidence of that.

However, there was an inevitability about it going this way when the instruction was so lacking in detail. I honestly believe anything from Norway/BRINO to WTO/EUpocalypse could be fairly said to respect the outcome of the referendum. That lack of clarity helped Leave win but it also gave us this lack of clear direction. A hung parliament with the largest party also being the most deeply and bitterly divided on the issue didn't simplify things any.

What annoys me more than politicians failing to reach a consensus is when they try to pass off their interpretation of 'what people voted for' as definitive.

It will take as long it takes - and you've trotted this Labour line out many times, despite me providing for you, twice I think, Labour's plan, as agreed at Conference - which is actually quite straightforward and turns out to make a lot of sense.

The deadlock at the moment is caused by Mrs May's insistence on maintaining her ridiculous red lines - if they won another election and she maintains that position, let her put it to the people; I really don't see the big issue with it as a way of breaking the stalemate. We were asked a binary question 2 years ago, devoid of detail, if we wanted to leave the EU; a tiny majority said yes, a tiny minority said no - with large sections of both camps undoubtedly voting based on lies, misinformation and promises that simply could not be delivered.

Two years on, we know a lot more about the realities of leaving the EU - so present the options and let the people either ratify or reject the project; I'd even do it with a ban on campaigning - that shortens the timescale, and curtails the lying. It seems simple doesn't it?

Firstly a general election isn't going to happen, if it does happen do you really believe that the previously euro sceptic Corbyn to be priminister, hell no
Secondly might be the only way to go IF the EU agrees
Thirdly there is nothing that splits people, friends and family like a referendum and we had one 2 year ago, so is a no go for me, also your idea of a Referendum which would include remain which would totally disregard the last vote, it should be that deal or leave without a deal.
You suggest 1) General Election, 4) another referendum, 6) yet another referendum. I really can't believe you are suggesting going to the people another 3 times OMG.

Paul

Agree, however

The problem is there isn't a majority to leave so how can you have MPs negotiating a deal that they don't want to happen?

The whole idea of a referendum in the first place was fundamentally stupid; designed by Cameron to get the UKIP vote back into the Tory fold - but since that was the decision, it should have been done in a grown up way - and it just wasn't. Some countries have fine-tuned them to avoid the divisiveness, some have banned them altogether as an entirely unfit method to make political decisions - we did neither, and inflicted this whole binary argument on the UK, which feels like it has created wounds that will never heal.

But the genie is out of the bottle now, so the only way to proceed is to say here are the options, let the people speak - again - which is actually not in any way undemocratic; we do it with General and Local Elections all the bloody time.

Once it's done, fundamentally change our democracy - get rid of the stupid FPTP system, repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and ban referenda from ever being used again; or better still, get rid of the whole lot and install a benign dictatorship - I'd go for David Attenborough, although given his advancing years, maybe David Gedge out of The Wedding Present.

For those Leavers so appalled at the thought of another referendum, don't forget this scummy Tory party were voted in to power in May 2015; less than 2 years later they called another election with the sole intention of stifling any meaningful opposition. That process took just over 2 months. Not 9 months or a year. They have created this monster.

There's enough MPs enthusiastic about or at least willing to accept some form of Brexit. However, the issue comes when you start to look at any particular version of Brexit. There's no majority (in parliament or the country) for no deal, or a hard negotiated Brexit or a soft negotiated Brexit. At least among leavers, I'd guess the vast majority of remainers would go for a soft negotiated brexit once no brexit was off the table, with enough moderate leavers to get it above 50%. Take out no deal and it could be close though. We need to start narrowing the options, that's obvious.

If Leave was a single unified vision, then we'd have a path to follow. But it actually reflects the disparate views of a broad and quite unusual coalition.

From where I am looking if you want ensure the EU has no influence whatsoever you need to leave with No Deal. Why would the EU give a deal away that gives you all the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations?

The backstop is a red herring for me - huge amounts of imports come into Europe from outside the EU many of which are part of very slick retail supply chains and they manage to reach their destinations without delay and with the correct duties being paid. All livestock that crosses the Irish border is still checked so no difference there.

Here lies the problem Sal. Unfortunately I think we will go the way of other countries including Ireland that have voted to leave in the past and end up staying in.

Paul

Come on Bren, Labours "6 tests" are a bloody joke, especially the one regardeing not being worse off ??
something that it utterly inpossible in the short/ medium term, which means that Labour CANNOT vote for any deal proposed by the current government and they would actually fail THEIR OWN proposal, should they apply their own 6 teasts, it's just bonkers.

You say that you dont see a big issue but, the second vote is likely to be just as close as the first, although I accept thet theis could be in either direction.

Any ban on campaigning isn't going to happen and nor should it.

Although it would mean that no lies were told, it also bans any truth and where is the sense in that ??

IF Mr Corbyn had campaigned for remain in the first instance, the result would quite possibly have been remain but, he chose to keep quiet, very quiet and even now, you would be hard pressed to know just what he wants, apart from a shot at running the country.

You say that large sections voted based on lies and to some extent I agree with you but, wher is the evidence that people would change their vote ?
One thing is for certaiin and that is that peoples views have definitely "hardened" and there will be literally millions of disaffected people and the "leave" side will rightly feel that they have been ignored and cheated.

Labour had their chance when Mrs May called her "strong and stable" election and although they rallied towards the end of the campaign, they still couldn't muster a majority.

We are still left with Mrs May trying to force through her deal, which regardless of how many tweaks it gets looks doomed and eventually, this may mean that we crash out of Europe with no deal.
Maybe Corbyn could rally the MP's with his own version of Brexit, which would make Mrs May even weaker.
He could sell his vision of the future (either in or out, as we're not entirely sure where he stands) and then we can all make a comparison ?