Jo Johnson resigns

[cromwell]

Jo Johnson's summing up of the current UK/EU situation is pretty accurate. "Either vassalage or chaos".

But that's as far as it goes. He wants another referendum. What he doesn't say is he wants another referendum and he wants us to vote to remain in the EU.

But here's a question. What if we still voted to leave?

We'd be back to square one. Two years ago the British public voted to leave the EU. Since then the mechanics of leaving the EU have been left to the British political classes - and what a mess they are making of it! Dominic Raab has somewhat belatedly realised that yes, there is indeed quite a lot of goods traffic between Dover and Calais. And yes, Theresa May and her remaniac advisers want to tie us to the EU in perpetuity and are quite prepared to lie through their teeth about it. And the Tory rebels are about as rebellious as Walter the Softy in the Beano. As for Labour, what is their position? No one seems to know, including them.

So leaving aside the fact that Article 50 comes into force in March next year, if we voted in another referendum and still voted to leave, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent the British political class (of which Jo Johnson is a member) in general and the government (of which until recently Jo Johnson was also a member) of making just a big a mess of it again.

[Workingman]

An honest opinion?

OK, the question is hypothetical so there is no reason for reams of links or 'facts' or quotes or 'history' or justification. The question is: What if we still voted to leave?

To avoid the "back to square one" scenario the question on the new paper cannot be the binary Remain or Leave. Suggestions I have seen to cater for that come in the form of:

1. Remain
2. Leave X
3. Leave Y

or similar variations. So we get things like:

1. Remain
2. Leave No Deal
3. Leave with deal

The problem with all of those is that they split the Leave vote leaving Remain (potentially) the only winner. A referendum posed in such a way is not fair to the Leave side.

Another option, and in my mind one of the best, is a two part question along the lines of:

Part A.

1. Remain
2. Leave

If you vote 2. go to part B.

Part B.

1. Leave A
2..Leave B
3. Leave C
4. Leave D

Only those who voted 2. Leave get to choose from Part B. The options A-D are the most popular hammered out by the various Leave campaigns.

If Remain wins, that's it, but if Leave wins the negotiations go to the most popular of A-D.

[cromwell]

Well that seems pretty sensible. Whether it is acceptable to hold another referendum is one stumblingg block and whether we could organise one in time is another.

[Workingman]

Cromwell, I think you are right. Months and months ago I said that time pressure was affecting the negotiations and that a pause was needed to give us, both sides, some wriggle room.

We are now probably at the event horizon with the only option being to stop the whole thing, but that's another issue.

[Suff]

Whilst that is very sensible WM, far more sensible than anything else which has been mooted, I am not in favour of it.

Not because I want leave, but because I want responsible voting. If people vote for something, they damned well better think about it. They should not get a do over until after they have experienced the reality of their vote.

Today I was paid the signal offer of being part of the wreath laying party at our French town. This brings me to the thought that the UK was not part of the EU, the EEC or any other "wonderful" agreement. We, the UK, stood up for those who were being attacked, did the right thing and nobody had to tell us to do so. We didn't need to be in a NATO or a "single market" to do the right thing. We just did.

That is the UK I would like to see again. We will _never_ see that UK in the EU. Today I also watched some of the 100 year remembrance at the cenotaph. I noted the fact that it involved not just one country but 53 members of the Commonwealth, England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Plus the Republic of Ireland too.

There is no other nation on this planet who does remembrance like that because there is no other nation on this planet which has such a breadth of contacts with other nations in the world nor the power we wielded at that time.

It is about time the UK took the pain of leaving the EU and went back to understanding just exactly who they really are.

This mealy mouthed "second referendum" is nothing but a smokescreen for people who don't like hard work for a fair result.

Time to pay the piper....

[Workingman]

Sticking with the hypothetical referendum and the "What if we still voted to leave?" scenario.

The two part ref suggestion is not mine, I read it in a thread where it was looked upon favourably by Remain and Leave alike.

It does two things: It protects the Leave vote from being split at the first hurdle and, crucially, it does allow voters to vote for something. It might need tweaking a bit but it is worth looking at.

It could also provide a template for future binary style referendums on other subjects.

[Workingman]

May I just put another hypothetical forward before I go to bed?

Imagine the CJEU says we can revoke A50 and by some magical means we do so; it does not automatically kill Brexit. Brexiters will not go away, they will ask again, and rightly so.

The discussions about Brexit are now not going to be silenced and we must accept that. What it does do, however, is allow for us, all of us, to come up with a plan most of us can accept and also a way of presenting it so that next time - there will be a next time - we are all on the same page. As it is a constitutional matter I would suggest an all party negotiating team with professional negotiators from different walks of life being involved and with the civil service only consulted for its views.

I also imagine that the treaty will be amended so that there is a time limit between A50, then revocation, then another A50. The easiest, to me, would be for only one presentation of A50 per EU budget period: seven years. It would also include a seven year gap between each to stop a country presenting A50 in year six or seven and then again in year one of the next period.

The process for leaving the EU is a mess and the clause 'detailing' it is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. It is as though nobody though that a country would ever want to leave, so any old guff would do. A word-by-word makeover is desperately needed.

[Suff]

The process for leaving the EU is a mess and the clause 'detailing' it is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. It is as though nobody though that a country would ever want to leave, so any old guff would do. A word-by-word makeover is desperately needed.

Naturally. The clause was put in as a sop to the Danish voters who refused to sign any more power to the EU until it stopped being undemocratic. The sop was that if the Danes really felt the could no longer abide the EU then they would have a way out.

Nobody ever thought that it would be triggered. The French and Germans have too much say in the EU. the British were too far under control.

They now talk about a Farage in every country. The institutions of the EU are in no doubt whatsoever who the Architect of moving the UK to Brexit is. They have learned a very hard won lesson, that to act as if nobody will ever leave, no matter what you do or who you step on, is not a winning combination.

So it is extremely unlikely the CJEU will form any opinion until it is forced on them. When they do, the opinion will be to the benefit of the vast majority of the EU and not to a minority of the UK.

If anyone believes that unilateral rescinding of A50 is in the best interests of the majority of the EU, then I stop there because nothing I say will make the slightest difference.

[medsec222]

It is all becoming more and more depressing. The EU have got Theresa May on the ropes now. I can't see an orderly exit at this late stage. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory looks on the cards now. I suppose we can always jump off the cliff!

[Workingman]

So it is extremely unlikely the CJEU will form any opinion until it is forced on them.

And that is what has happened. The case went to the outer house of the Scottish Court of Session under one judge. He refused it, but allowed the right of appeal. The case then went to the inner house under three judges and they allowed it to be passed to the CJEU for clarification. Deliberations start at 9am on the 27th of November.

The eyes of the world are now on the CJEU and I am confident that its deliberations and judgement will be based on the merit or demerit of the case under law and not upon what France or Germany or the EU wants. Anything less would place it under disrepute, and no court wants that.

Remember it is dealing with a world first, is under the microscope, and has to publish the reason(s) for its decision.