Some housekeeping first: looks like the 48 letter challenge to May’s premiership has stalled, rather embarrassingly for the main cheerleaders involved. Meanwhile, Spain is threatening to bring down the whole deal from the EU side over provisions covering Gibraltar – remember, the deal still has to be ratified by the EU27. There are still a lot of twists and turns in the tail.
The way I see it, we’ve come down to two choices: May gets her deal through parliament and we thus get a very soft Brexit (or indeed, stay in transition for possibly decades) or we will have a second referendum. If we have a second referendum, I think the country will probably vote to Remain. I want to say here, not because I think Remain campaigners have really learned the lessons of 2016 and will thus run a vastly superior campaign, or indeed that the country has got that much more Remainery over the last two and half years, just that if you think about the two ways the referendum would go, they both favour Remain greatly. If it’s a three-way with no deal, May’s deal and Remain on the ballot, the Leave vote gets split. If it’s just May’s deal versus Remain, the Leavers have spent all of their time basically campaigning for Remain the last few weeks. I’m far from saying it would be in the bag for Remain, but they would start out from a much better place this time round; attacking an actual deal is way easier than punching the air.
I just don’t see no deal happening. For a while, I thought that the basic inertia of so much of the current parliament would see us tumbling out, but I no longer see that as particularly realistic; I give a less than 2% chance. There are too many people on the Tory benches who would see no deal as a disaster for both the country and the Conservative party; there are too many Labour MPs who would do whatever they had to in order to avoid no deal; then you’ve got about 50-odd MPs already in the SNP, Lib Dems and other smaller parties who will vote for a second referendum, meaning that takes the target you’d need to get something through parliament down substantially. If May’s deal gets voted down, a second referendum starts to look inevitable, if only because it begins to look like the only option. And for those saying there’s no time left, please engage your brains: everyone knows the EU Commission would grant an extension of Article 50 if there was a second referendum in the offing. One of the strange things about the present is that the same people who think extending the Article 50 period for a second referendum is impossible are the very same ones who think we’ll be able to get a brand new deal out of the Commission in 15 minutes.
I still wouldn’t write off May’s deal getting through parliament entirely. Many a time have we all thought that May was cornered and would never be able to cobble the votes she needed together, only to see her squeak through. It could happen again. However, if it doesn’t this time round, remaining in the European Union starts to look likely in a way it hasn’t since June 2016.
everyone knows the EU Commission would grant an extension of Article 50 if there was a second referendum in the offing
Well, yes, but there are complications: like, do we then have a European Parliament election in the UK next year? After all technically we’ll still be members. And if the idea is for us to Remain, I don’t see how you can avoid it.
And then what happens when UKIP win it with about 50% of the vote, as they will, because it will be a chance for every Leave voter to give May a kicking without risking a Corbyn government? That will blwo a massive hole in the ‘the country regrets its choice, realises it was naughty, and just wants another chance to vote correctly’ narrative that second-referendum proponents have been pushing.
(There’s also the question of how long an extension would be granted to Article 50. It will take a LOT of parliamentary time to hash out things like what the question should be, what the franchise will be (remainers will push for EU citizens and children to be given the vote, for example), and then there’s the die-hards who will take every opportunity to just throw spanners in the timetable. Plus it’ll run into the summer recess, which adds another few months. Then there’s the picking the official sides, the actual campaigns… given none of this has started yet and won’t until January at the earliest, and it was more than a year from the introduction of the first referendum Act to the actual referendum and this one will be fought over far far more bitterly (and the first one was introduced by a majority government!), I don’t see how a second referendum could happen before, I don’t know, early 2020?
Would the EU really be okay with a twelve-month extension to Article 50 for an uncertain process at the end of which — given a renewed Leave campaign will have had an extra twelve months to keep banging the drum of, ‘we’re being forced to vote again, you don’t want to vote again, do you, you just want them to get on with it, vote anything-but-Remain to tell the EU where to stuff it’ — it’s entirely possible we’ll just end up right back in the same situation like some kind of hellish Steve Bell Groundhog Day.
“everyone knows the EU Commission would grant an extension of Article 50 if there was a second referendum in the offing”
It’s not actually in the Commission’s power to do that. It would require the unanimous agreement of the European Council. Still, it’s difficult to imagine anyone objecting to a temporary extension to allow a referendum to be held.
“If it’s a three-way with no deal, May’s deal and Remain on the ballot, the Leave vote gets split.”
Surely if it were a three-way referendum it would have to be done by Alternative Vote? Presumably nearly all the “No Deal” first preferences would make “May’s Deal” their second preference, rather than “Remain”.
Presumably nearly all the “No Deal” first preferences would make “May’s Deal” their second preference, rather than “Remain”.
Ah, but what will matter is where the ‘May’s Deal’ second preferences go.
S said:
“Ah, but what will matter is where the ‘May’s Deal’ second preferences go.”
That would matter if “May’s Deal” came third. But if “No Deal” came third, then it would be the “No Deal” second preferences that would matter.
Yes that was exactly the point well done
Chris Phillips –
Simply by having two ‘Leave’ options on a ballot paper would change, and perhaps even confuse, the dynamics of the referendum campaign by dividing the forces of one (the Leave) side – whether the Alternative Vote was used or not.
So it seems to me rather unlikely that a three- (or more) option referendum on the EU issue (or anything else for that matter) would be recommended to be put to the public because the outcome could be open to some interpretation, to put it mildly.
And then there is the little issue of the Alternative Vote being rejected in the referendum of 2011.
Obviously, the whole referendum question is a can of worms.
If there were three options, would that mean three official campaigns, and equal time for all of them?
If there were only two, how on earth to decide which two? Clearly there are three main possibilities, and why should the public be offered a choice between only two of them? The only logical ground I can see for omitting one of the three is that the public has already chosen to reject remaining in the EU. But on the other hand the Remainers seem to be the only ones who want a referendum!
Perhaps we’d need to have two referendums – the first “Remain or Leave – the Sequel”, and the second – if there were another vote to Leave – on “Deal or No Deal”. But that might offend even our politicians’ severely underdeveloped sense of the absurd.
I think Nick Tyrone is right not to dismiss the chances of May’s deal being approved by Parliament, because the difficulties involved in the other options seem so intractable.
Chris
“If there were three options, would that mean three official campaigns, and equal time for all of them?” – Indeed.
“If there were only two, how on earth to decide which two?” – The Electoral Commission, but your point is well made.
“The only logical ground I can see for omitting one of the three is that the public has already chosen to reject remaining in the EU.” – I have heard that argued.
“But on the other hand the Remainers seem to be the only ones who want a referendum!” – To coin a phrase: “Well, they would, wouldn’t they?”
“Perhaps we’d need to have two referendums” – a three-option, two-round referendum was held to decide the future of Newfoundland in June and July 1948. On the second round, 52.3% voted to join Canada over continued independence.
As far as I am aware no-one has demanded a referendum re-run because the pro-Canada electors didn’t know what they were voting for, or that they were duped or that many of them now happen to be dead.
“If there were only two, how on earth to decide which two?” – The Electoral Commission*, but your point is well made.
* I meant to add: – The Electoral Commission with direction from the politicians (it’s what they are for), but the/ your point is well made.
Nick let’s be clear 17 million who voted leave had no idea that when you leave a 40 year marriage you lose the house kids eg n ireland
You take back control by moving into a one bed bedsit or if you are lucky you buy a one bed flat but your finances are shredded
You desperately begin to look for new partners who can smell desperation
And hence take advantage
But you show prospective partners look how young and virile I looked in these photos instead of the washed out old man howling at the dying of the light
Take back control
UK a warning grandiose stupidity
Any extension of Article 50 more that a couple of months runs into legal problems. One side or the other would mount a challenge in the courts. Even a 3 month extension would really be pushing it.
European elections are due early in May, would the UK be running these elections or not? A little afterwards a new parliament is formed and the EU Parliament will adopt the ‘lead’ candidate for president of the commission. None of this will be stopped.
Could some sort of limbo status be established? Short of treaty change, it is difficult to see how. Perhaps it could be agreed that an outcome of ‘the transition’ could be to return back. I really do not know; it is a mess.
Fair points Martin.
Could British participation in the European Parliament election be an alternative to another referendum? Each group of candidates could make clear their position on Brexit. People would be able to vote for representatives who shared their views on Brexit and other issues. Representatives would be elected in proportion to their share of the vote. After the election, the British MEPs could meet to decide a solution to the Brexit problem to recommend it to the government and parliament.
They certainly could do that, but it would have no legal force and I very much doubt that you’d get all groups of MEPs to agree to participate, so in effect you’d have a small bunch of Remainer MEPs sitting around agreeing among themselves that Article 50 should be rescinded which the UKIP majority of British MEPs simply ignored the meeting.
The result would… well, let’s just say ‘lack even the barest fig leaf of legitimacy’.
You seem to assume that a European Parliament election in 2019 would be the same as previous European elections in Britain, namely an event that attracted attention mainly from a few hard line Euro-sceptics. It would actually be entirely different because it would be seen as another referendum on Brexit. The turnout would probably be similar to that in the 2016 referendum. Recent opinion polls suggest a majority now oppose Brexit. Of course the polls might be wrong or things might change during the campaign. Obviously if Ukip or Ukip + Tory Brexiteers + Labour Lexiteers + DUP won a majority, the result of the referendum would be confirmed and that would be the end of the Remain cause.
It would actually be entirely different because it would be seen as another referendum on Brexit.
Yes but…
The turnout would probably be similar to that in the 2016 referendum.
I suspect, no. I think the vast majority of people now have lost interest; those who would bother to turn out are the hardline Euro-sceptics, and the Remoaners. The former vastly outnumber the latter, who although they fancy themselves as ‘the 48%’ are actually more like ‘the 9%’ (but they are very loud on Twitter so they fool themselves that there are more of them than there actually are).
Recent opinion polls suggest a majority now oppose Brexit.
Some do; some suggest there’s been no change. There’s no consistent cross-poll evidence of a shift to Remain; and in any case, remember that polls predicted a Remain win in 2016, too.
Obviously if Ukip or Ukip + Tory Brexiteers + Labour Lexiteers + DUP won a majority, the result of the referendum would be confirmed and that would be the end of the Remain cause.
Hah. You really think the continuity Remainers would give up just because they were defeated in another vote? You sweet, summer child. By definition, they don’t accept the result of votes, or they would have accepted the result of the referendum. They’d just come up with other reasons why this vote was invalid and another should be held until they get the result they want (at which point that vote and that vote only should be allowed to stand unchallenged).
Oh, also, I have a pet theory that May’s plan for getting the surrender sorry deal though Parliament is that she will threaten that if it does not go through, she will bring forward a bill for a two-option referendum: leave with no deal or remain. Basically daring Leavers to risk no Brexit, and Remainers to risk no deal, on a coin flip.
She hopes this will scare both sides sufficiently that they will (a) not question too much whether she could actually get such a bill through and (b) do anything to avoid that gamble.
Like I say, it’s just a theory.
Great theory?
Between a shoot out between no deal and remain
Gammon eats humble pie
I think the difficulties Spain is now raising over Gibraltar illustrate how weak the UK’s bargaining position will be if it requests an extension of the timetable, or indeed if it decides to remain in the EU and the European Court rules next week that it can’t unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification.
Spain can’t veto the withdrawal treaty, which can be approved by a majority, but any country can veto an extension of the timetable, which would require unanimity.
Chris Phillips –
I’ve said before that I think it is quite likely that the European Court of Justice will rule that the Article 50 notification can only be withdrawn with the agreement of the other Member states (whether by unanimity or qualified majority) in order to protect the European Union from Member states gaming the system for some advantage in future. But as our government has said it has no intention of withdrawing the Article 50 notice itself, it remains something of a moot point for us.
However, I do think you are right to highlight the possibility of a national veto disrupting some other vital aspect of the withdrawal process emanating from another Member state’s government or parliament. Possibly several. Spain is an obvious candidate. Ireland is another.
“However, I do think you are right to highlight the possibility of a national veto disrupting some other vital aspect of the withdrawal process emanating from another Member state’s government or parliament. Possibly several. Spain is an obvious candidate. Ireland is another.”
Well, according to the BBC, there are currently problems from Spain over Gibraltar and France, the Netherland and Denmark over fishing.
People sometimes talk almost as though it’s only the British who are affected by internal politics, and the other countries are models of sweet, reasonable objectivity motivated only by the greater good. Unfortunately all the people concerned are party politicians, and their prime motivation is looking after their own political positions, often viewed very myopically.
This is true. But that’s politics and so there we are.