world

May tries to break Brexit deadlock with offer of 'new deal'

30 Comments
By William James and Elizabeth Piper

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

Britain needs a second referendum. It does not need Boris Johnson.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Britain needs its politicians to respect the result of the first referendum and implement it. It does not need a second one.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

May's new deal is just a cynical reiteration of the same agreement that EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier achieved running rings around the UK incompetent negotiators.

If Farage Brexit Party can recruit and build a comprehensive political apparatus and fund a full General Election campaign, there is much more certainty and likeihood for change in UK political future.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

To call for a second referendum is astonishing arrogance.

Then to cheat and rig that referendum, with a choice of EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier withdrawal deal or remain, is swivel-eyed tricky, a treasonous betrayal.

Out with the current deceitful parliamentary establishment. A whole new brand of political governance must deliver directly accountable leadership and the authority for change.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The vote was made by a majority of 1.4 million, NO to a 2nd referendum,

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Given the narrowness of the first referendum and given that there was no clear vision of what Brexit would look like, then a second referendum is the only fair thing to give the British electorate.

Those who oppose this are nearly all Brexit supporters and that is because they know it is likely that they would lose. In other words, they are frightened that the population of the UK opposes Brexit.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Given the clear winning majority of 1.2 million in the first referendum and given that all politcians on both sides said that if the UK voted to leave, it would leave under all circumstances, then a second referendum is a completely unfair thing to give the British electorate and very undemocratic.

Those who oppose this are nearly all Remain supporters and that is because they won't accept the result until it goes their way (2nd, 3rd, 4th time). In other words, they are frightened that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

There is only two scenarios, two options;

To continue as a member state and ultimately accept a political federal trans-governmental representation.......

Or, make a complete political and economic clean break.......

There is no alternative proviso, article, or protocol within the Lisbon Treaty to deviate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Given the clear winning majority of 1.2 million in the first referendum and given that all politcians on both sides said that if the UK voted to leave, it would leave under all circumstances, then a second referendum is a completely unfair thing to give the British electorate and very undemocratic.

Yeah. Imagine if they did another referendum, and it turned out that the people don't actually want to leave anymore! Think how cheated those minority of British who still want to leave would feel! We need to protect their minority rights to not finding out what the people think now, over the actual wishes of the people who will have to live with the consequences.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yeah. Imagine holding a referendum in 2016, and it turned out that the people actually want to leave! Think how cheated those minority of British who want to stay would feel! We need to protect their minority rights to not implement the result, over the actual wishes of the people who will have to live with the consequences.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

they are frightened that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit.

Why would Remainers want a second referendum if they think that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit? They would simply be setting themselves up for more pain.

It's the Brexiteers who are afraid: afraid that with the nuts and bolts on the table (all the stuff that was either hidden or blatantly lied about in the lead-up to the first referendum) more people will see sense and decided that the status quo is better than being cast adrift on the open ocean of WTO, defenceless against the gaping maws of Trump's USA and Xi's China.

And it's not only about people 'changing their minds'; folk (on both sides) who didn't vote in 2016 because it was - apparently - a foregone conclusion that Remain would win, should be allowed the chance to have their say uninfluenced by the polls.

The 2016 referendum wasn't in fact legally binding - referendums in the UK never are. Parliament is sovereign, and since the MPs cannot come to any kind of agreement on how to do Brexit, or even if Brexit should be done at all, the sensible way forward is surely to shelve the whole idea, carry on as before, and if there are calls for it, raise the question again in say, ten years' time. And this time make the question sensible, include under 18s in the vote (it's their future, after all) and set a proper threshold: for a constitutional change as massive as Brexit, that should be of the order of 60~66% of either votes cast or the entire electorate - not a simple wafer-thin majority of those who voted (which was a mere 37% of the restricted electorate).

A House of Commons Briefing Paper 07212 (pdf download), published on 3 June 2015, pointed out to MPs, members of the House of Lords and other readers that the referendum was advisory only, and would not be binding on Parliament or government. This point was iterated viva voce by the Minister for Europe in the debate in the House of Commons later that month. This was the reason given for not including a threshold and for not extending the franchise appropriately. The outcome was that 37% of the restricted electorate given the franchise for the referendum voted to leave the EU. This outcome is by any standards insufficient to justify a constitutional change so significant as the UK’s exiting the EU.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/28/the-eu-referendum-was-gerrymandered/

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Those who oppose this are nearly all Remain supporters and that is because they won't accept the result until it goes their way (2nd, 3rd, 4th time). In other words, they are frightened that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit.

Nonsense. I want a second referendum. A less than 2% majority is not enough for such permanent and drastic change. If people still want to vote for it, let them and the result will stand.

I would favour a three-option single transferable vote - remain, soft brexit, hard brexit. This is probably the fairest.

If no referendum is offered then I would favour a Brexit it all but name Norway plus.

The likes of you will not be able to complain because we would have left without a second referendum.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You act as if people didn't choose to leave the EU.

Why should people who want to stay in the EU have more precedence over a democratic vote?

It's very clear that you guys are just afraid that the people won't agree with you anymore, so you'd rather suppress the result, rather than accepting the position based on a poll which had the highest turnout in British history.

Which is pretty anti-democratic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@cleo

Why would Remainers want a second referendum if they think that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit? They would simply be setting themselves up for more pain.

Because at this point, they'll take anything that gives them the slightest glimmer of remaining.

@Ah_so

The likes of you will not be able to complain because we would have left without a second referendum.

We're leaving. We had a vote, leave won, ignoring that result would open Pandora's box.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You act as if people didn't choose to leave the EU.

Most people didn't. Only 37% of a restricted electorate.

Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted overwhelmingly to Remain.

Why should people who want to stay in the EU have more precedence over a democratic vote?

They shouldn't. Neither should a minority who want to leave.

So let's have a democratic vote. (No, the 2016 one wasn't democratic.)

Because at this point, they'll take anything that gives them the slightest glimmer of remaining.

A total non-sequitur. If Remainers are frightened that the majority of the population of the UK supports Brexit, then a second referendum would offer them not the slightest glimmer of hope (which is what I imagine you mean by glimmer of remaining). It's the Brexiteers who are afraid. If you're so sure that you have the majority of the country firmly behind you, what harm would there be in sealing the deal once and for all with a resounding win at the ballot box?

ignoring that result would open Pandora's box.

It was holding the stupid referendum in the first place that opened Pandora's box. Now look at the sorry state of the country.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@cleo

Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted overwhelmingly to Remain.

The UK voted as a whole.

It's the Brexiteers who are afraid. If you're so sure that you have the majority of the country firmly behind you, what harm would there be in sealing the deal once and for all with a resounding win at the ballot box?

There is a democratic election on Thursday. If as you say, a majority want to remain, then they have the perfect opportunity to voice that opinion then.

If the combined total of votes for Change UK, SNP, Plaid, Lib Dems and Greens is higher than the combined total of the Brexit Party, UKIP and the Tories, I will be convinced that there is a case for another referendum.

It's not going to happen though.

Labour's policy is anybody's guess as they claim to represent leave and remain
-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is worth taking a moment to understand the European parliamentary election voting system and the use of proportional presentation......

European Parliament Liaison Office in the United Kingdom - The Voting System

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/european-elections/european_elections/the_voting_system.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Brexit vote was probably the first time true Democracy has ever occurred within the entire British History.

Sadly what happened afterwards has shown just how dysfunctional current British "Democratically" Elected Politicians can be.

What next ? May is out. Sarcastically speaking she should leave at the end of May....

Her successor - the flamboyant Boris Johnson, will likely fair no better. His best bet would be to be decisive, and dissolve Parliament, hold a general Election - which they'd loose, but then Labour wouldn't win either.

Hopefully the "Brexit Party" would win hands down, take us out of the UK, and then either do exceptionally well running the Country (down at the Pub), or hold another Election so that we could go back to the old 2-party race to nowhere.

If the "Brexit Party" didn't win, then the UK would be facing having to form a Coalition Government, which would potentially then seek to rejoin Europe... (or simply just repeat the dysfunctionalism we've seen todate). If this happens, then Law & Order across the UK would be the biggest concern - as Social unrest will simply explode - more so that what has been going on at present, watch for the tensions between the Muslim and Non-Muslim communities exploding as that's a tinder box just waiting to fire up.

In short, apart from Leaving Europe, the UK needs a radical overhaul in order to rejuvenate itself. It's form of Democracy has been proven to be non-functional, and something needs to be done about that, something that does not entail either the reinstatement of the Monarchy or installment of a Dictatorship. The UK peoples have been let down by a succession of bad management by both Major Political parties over the past couple of decades - it's time now for them to get their act together, put the House in order and move forward to a successful future - anything less than that is simply not worth worrying over.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is somewhat shameful reading:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48354692

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We're leaving. We had a vote, leave won, ignoring that result would open Pandora's box.

That box is already well and truly open. And those opposing a second referendum are clearly admitting that they fear remain would win.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Zichi

A minute majority voted to leave, many of them basing their decision on the lies told to them by the Conservatives, but there was also another 700,000 British citizens living abroad who were not permitted to vote, but still stand to lose their right to live in Europe, where many of them have made their homes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The UK voted as a whole.

And now it's in the hole. Great.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Had I not had my British vote removed for living oversea for more than 15 years, I would have voted to remain

You and me both, zichi.

a referendum was held with the government of the day stating it would accept the outcome of the vote.

But when the results were out the 'government of the day' scarpered. Cameron gone, those pushing most for Leave - Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al - also declining to take responsibility for Leave. It was left up to a Remainer, Theresa May, to try to do something with an irretrievable mess.

99.92% of the voters, voted.

If you mean turnout, that was certainly pretty high, at 72.2%, but certainly not 99.92%. Dunno where you got that. Of the turnout, yes, 51.89% voted Leave, but that was only 37% of the electorate.

The Scotland Independence referendum had a threshold of 40% of the electorate. If the EU referendum had had the same rules as the Scotland vote (and for such a momentous decision, it should have) then Leave would have Lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 that's how the system always works. First past the post. 

No, it isn't. This wasn't a general election. According to the High Court,

*a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. *No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf#page=32

In other words, the claim that 'the result of the referendum must be honoured' because 'to do otherwise would be undemocratic' is balderdash; taking the result of an advisory referendum as binding goes against the law of the land and is in itself undemocratic. Politicians who claimed/claim that the result must be binding are charlatans and liars.

The choices for me are (i)leave with an agreement. (ii)leave with no agreement. (iii) cancel Article 50.

(iii).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I stand by my claim, that the Brexit vote, was the only Democratic vote in the UK's entire History.

1 Agenda : 1 Person : 1 Vote

No voting constituency boundary manipulations, just a simple vote Yes/No at the Agenda level.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites