How to change a remainers mind

[tomtomagain]

Second referendum is inevitable - the only question is whether it will be about cancelling madness of Brexit or reapplying back to EU

'fraid not. There's nothing inevitable about it at all.

Seems more like a last desperate throw of the dice by the Remain-Crowd.

Rejoining would mean committing to the EURO and Schengen, all new states have to. Cannot see that being acceptable to the English for a generation.

... and I don't think any politician is going to be so rash to offer a referendum on any subject in the near future!

[AtW]

Rejoining would mean committing to the EURO and Schengen, all new states have to.

Yup, and we'll have to adopt metric system too and change the side of the road where car drives, Brexit is just wonderful unifying force for good - so bring on Hard Brexit!

[tomtomagain]

You've not quite grasped the purpose of this sub-forum, have you?

Surely it's to hold a reasoned debate, respecting the views of the other, on the biggest political change in 50 years?

[tomtomagain]

Yup, and we'll have to adopt metric system too and change the side of the road where car drives, Brexit is just wonderful unifying force for good - so bring on Hard Brexit!

Cool. Can we have Mediterranean style weather too?

[sasguru]

I don't think so. It would rely on a very unlikely set of circumstances.

The government would have to legislate to hold a second referendum, the question would have to be agreed. I don't see HMG introducing such a bill to the Commons. And if they did, there's no guarantee it would pass and having such a bill would undermine the UK's negotiating position.

Neither Labour or the Tories had a pledge to hold a second ref. in their manifesto's. In fact, both pledged to implement the result of the first referendum. So one or both parties would have to go change their position significantly. And like it or not, the Labour and Conservative positions are far closer than they would both like to admit. The Liberals are the only party who have actively opposed BREXIT - and they got thumped at the last election.

Next issue is that the EU Withdrawal Bill is law, its passed through both houses and will come into effect on 29th March 2019 - repealing the laws that brought the UK into EU in the first place. That would need to be amended. Legally BREXIT has already happened.

You couldn't have a second ref until "The Deal" was agreed - and that's going to be very late in the day/down-to-the-wire. And of course you'd need to have an agreement with the EU that they would accept the UK back in and that needs to be agreed by the 27 countries. Anyone of which can veto.

If "The Deal" is agreed in January, there would only be a few short weeks to get a referendum organised and held. There's not enough time.


Finally, there's no reason to believe that even if a second ref. were held, the result would probably be any different. The "Remain" argument would be easy to shred in the noisy hysteria-fest that is modern journalism. There was no immediate recession. There was no immediate loss of jobs. It would be vey easy to portray the second. ref as the "Elite" trying to tell you they know best, ignoring the democratic will of the people and the EU was bullying, inflexible institution unwilling to listen to the concerns of the British people.

Maybe you're right.
Hard Brexit it is then !

[BlasterBates]

So it looks like Vladimir will succeed in getting the UK to dismantle its own economy.

Nige and Aaron have their snouts in that gravy train.

[meridian]

I don't think so. It would rely on a very unlikely set of circumstances.

The government would have to legislate to hold a second referendum, the question would have to be agreed. I don't see HMG introducing such a bill to the Commons. And if they did, there's no guarantee it would pass and having such a bill would undermine the UK's negotiating position.

Neither Labour or the Tories had a pledge to hold a second ref. in their manifesto's. In fact, both pledged to implement the result of the first referendum. So one or both parties would have to go change their position significantly. And like it or not, the Labour and Conservative positions are far closer than they would both like to admit. The Liberals are the only party who have actively opposed BREXIT - and they got thumped at the last election.

Next issue is that the EU Withdrawal Bill is law, its passed through both houses and will come into effect on 29th March 2019 - repealing the laws that brought the UK into EU in the first place. That would need to be amended. Legally BREXIT has already happened.

You couldn't have a second ref until "The Deal" was agreed - and that's going to be very late in the day/down-to-the-wire. And of course you'd need to have an agreement with the EU that they would accept the UK back in and that needs to be agreed by the 27 countries. Anyone of which can veto.

If "The Deal" is agreed in January, there would only be a few short weeks to get a referendum organised and held. There's not enough time.


Finally, there's no reason to believe that even if a second ref. were held, the result would probably be any different. The "Remain" argument would be easy to shred in the noisy hysteria-fest that is modern journalism. There was no immediate recession. There was no immediate loss of jobs. It would be vey easy to portray the second. ref as the "Elite" trying to tell you they know best, ignoring the democratic will of the people and the EU was bullying, inflexible institution unwilling to listen to the concerns of the British people.

I tend to agree with your analysis (apart from the “undermining negotiations” bit - any Withdrawal Agreement needs to be ratified by the 27 EU member state governments and this doesn’t seem to have undermined their positions at all).

However: if it does come down to the wire (and I agree that it probably will) and there is a last minute deal of sorts, the EU has been making a lot of noises that they would consider an extension of the A50 timeframe. It won’t be extended if the U.K. is dithering over a position, but it will be seriously considered if there is a deal on the table, Parliament has accepted that deal, and the U.K. Gov wants to put it to the people for a final vote. Of course one country can veto that, but Tusk//Barnier etc have been making all the right noises for en extension.

If any second ref was a straight Leave/Remain then I suspect that it would still be too close to call and you’re right, there would be hysteria among the right-wing MSM, whipped up by Farage/JRM etc.

Any second ref would need to be on accepting the deal on offer and agreed by Parliament. It’s the other side of the question that would be interesting - if we don’t accept the deal, would that mean No Deal or Remain? Or a three-way question?

(The Withdrawal Bill may have already been passed, but like any law it can be repealed)

[tomtomagain]

Any second ref would need to be on accepting the deal on offer and agreed by Parliament. It’s the other side of the question that would be interesting - if we don’t accept the deal, would that mean No Deal or Remain? Or a three-way question?

Well it wouldn't be a three-way question ( "Remain", "Leave - No Deal", "Leave - Accept Deal" ) because that would split the "Leave" vote and there is no way that that would be acceptable to "Leave". Let's say it was a 3-way question and the results were 40/30/30 - then you'd be staying in but the majority of people had voted out .... that's not going to end well.

The only feasible question is: "Leave - Accept Deal" or "Leave - No Deal".

The Tories would have zero credibility left if they tried to say to say that after 2 years of torturous negotiations, expending all their political capital and threatening to split the party that staying in was an option. They ain't going to offer it. It would kill them. .... we gave you the vote to leave ... you voted to leave ... we dicked around for two years ... let's all pretend it didn't happen.

But anyway, what would we vote to remain in? The pre-2016 EU or the evolving, ever-closer-union EU of 2018? The EU is not a settled case, it's always evolving. Like it or not, the UK has never sat comfortably within the EU, if you find yourself on a bus going the wrong direction sooner or later you have to get off the bus.

[WTFH]

The only feasible question is: "Leave - Accept Deal" or "Leave - No Deal".

How about just "Accept deal" or "reject deal"?

If the deal is acceptable, then whatever has been agreed is carried out. If it's not acceptable, then further negations have to take place.

... if you find yourself on a bus going the wrong direction sooner or later you have to get off the bus.

Or you just stick £350 million on the side of it and hope that people jump on board with you, then blame an airline when the bus driver gets off the bus and runs away and blame an airline when the bus starts going round in circles without a driver.

[tomtomagain]

How about just "Accept deal" or "reject deal"?

If the deal is acceptable, then whatever has been agreed is carried out. If it's not acceptable, then further negations have to take place.

Nah, doesn't work. Are you rejecting the deal because it's too stringent or too lenient? Going back to the EU and saying this was rejected doesn't tell you which bit of the complex deal was rejected. Was it the payment terms? Was it trade? Was it migration? Was the the ECJ?

And then are you supposed to have a public vote on whatever comes out of the extended negotiation?

Or you just stick £350 million on the side of it and hope that people jump on board with you, then blame an airline when the bus driver gets off the bus and runs away and blame an airline when the bus starts going round in circles without a driver.

Or you could just claim that rejecting the deal will result in an immediate recession and loss of 500k jobs.

That both sides fibbed is hardly surprising ( the £350M is correct ... if you ignore the rebate and the amount that the EU spends in the UK )