It's almost impossible to define the terms of those bet.

The time pressures work in May's favour. It goes to HoC and they can easily throw it out. If somehow then they still can't get rid of May (or force through a different option, which is tantamount to the same thing as getting rid of May) then what are the reasonable MPs going to do if it comes back to the HoC in some similar form? If they haven't been able to find another way then they're now staring at the looming cliff edge if they dont vote for the deal. Maybe there's time for a 3rd go, doubt it but then it's even worse for them

This assumes may can survive which seems totally ridiculous and yet ....

Any reasonable Labour MP votes against the deal if it doesn't satisfy Labour's agreed criteria and when it doesn't any unreasonable MP lend their support they should be deselected.

I dunno. Yes to a 2nd referendum or GE over the deal but crashing out with no deal seems like a really really bad idea.

We desperately need parliament to assert itself over this but if they dont then reasonable MPs are going to want to avoid crashing out.

No, it's very simple to define no deal.

It still feels like a referendum is becoming more and more likely as time passes.

?

I was responding to your point about which type of deal is done.

GE, have the government fall extend A50

I was responding to a question about the odds of a hard Brexit. No deal is one of the options but the bookies don't have it (the others are very hard to quantify).

Sure. Or I much prefer the 2nd referendum route

I'm discussing with J the (should be bizarre) scenarios where they vote down the deal and May still survives.

OK. Let's just move on from this confusion. My bad probably, sorry.

2nd referendum route is bad imo because it leaves intact the causes of resentment that lead to it.

I'm not sure Corbyn would be looking for a deal that satisfies Labour's six tests to be honest.

Nothing is going to heal the resentment, causes and bitterness quickly. The overiding urgency imo is to remain in the EU. 2nd referendum is our best bet for that by a long way. Then we need a labour government.

That's still besides the point which is on may somehow getting a deal through. That's not about what any of us want (there's only 3.5 people in the whole country who want it), it's pure, can't look away, fascination at this epic and historical slow motion car crash

Yeah its entertaining.

The only way this even has a chance to heal is leaving IMO. If the EU is so wonderful and going it alone is so bad, then that's the best way for a significant proportion of the population to see that's true. Not leaving will just empower the far right IMO as stating will be seen as EU + Elites manipulation to keep us from leaving, and no one wants that.

I have a general question to remainers. I see remainers on the likes of Question Time assert the point that democracy doesn't stand still as a reason for another referendum, and people can change their mind...(and blithely ignoring it took 40 years before the public were consulted about the continued integration and surrender of veto and sovereignty in the mean time...) but if we ever vote to stay again, we're never getting another referendum to leave, are we? So what happens if we change our minds back? People like myself who loathe the EU project along the lines it has developed do not get another democratic chance to vote about it...

but how do remainers feel about this...if we stayed, but if we constitutionally agreed to have a binding stay/leave referendum every EU budgetary cycle. That way, the EU would have to keep in line AND be much better disposed to look after the interests of the UK, and which would in turn keep a majority happy with staying. Thoughts?

I dont doubt that remaining will empower farage & co to some extent which is very bad.

but the far bigger picture is that the division of leaving plays into the hands of the far right movements, the putins, trump etc across Europe and the world. This is the time for us to be standing united.

If we stay and there's enough demand for another go at leaving then there will be another attempt at leaving. We live in a democracy so all you have to do is mobilise your vote. I dont think it will arise (barring exceptional circumstances) because demographic changes are constantly eroding the leave vote.

A referendum on budgets makes no sense to me. There is now a legal requirement for a referendum on treaty changes

The causes of resentment are probably nothing to do with membership of the EU, so have to be tackled separately anyway (polls showed a large majority in favour of the EU before the press's campaign of xenophobic scare stories about sausages and bananas created a runaway train of anti-EU feeling, exacerbated by the 2008 banking disaster).

This should have been in place at Maastricht and Lisbon

Plus... We all know how well the EU respects referenda results, right?

Continual referenda are a bad idea.

If important structural or democratic changes happen or the financial stability of the union becomes critically jeopardised, then I can see members wanting to defer to their electorates.

My flatmates appear to know more about this than I do. They mentioned that if Brexit doesn't happen then a lot of conservatives get voted out and as a result UKIP might end up gaining those seats. UKIP will jump in and talk about how they'll be able to deliver a government that is best for the dissatisfied Brexiters. Thus it would lead to a rise in right-wing populist parties and greater resentment among those Brexiters. Not sure if that's a valid concern.

I argue that allowing Brexit to happen would be a much greater win for right-wing populism and would result in a more powerful right-wing influence than remaining in the EU after a second referendum. Instead of having UKIP representing right-wing populism, the conservatives would mainline it themselves and make it more palatable to the masses. Sure maybe some of those conservative seats go to UKIP if Brexit doesn't happen but I'm sure some would also go to Labour as well.

I believe people were misled by proponents of Brexit during the first referendum and voted on a complex topic based on deliberate deception and misinformation by the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. With a better informed public aware of the consequences of Brexit, a referendum would be more appropriate.

Yes. Quite right too.

London bankers will be working as bankers in Amsterdam, Paris, or some other major European city if **** really hits the fan.

Why do you think they are a bad idea? Regular elections keep democratic integrity at a national level, why not regular referenda for international memberships to maintain democratic integrity?


Personally, I'd be fine with staying in the EU if they were held to account by the UK public every 5-7 years.

It's a very valid concern although splitting the tory vote is potentially brilliant. I'm far more worried about the labour voters that will going to ukip.

It's just something we're going to have to face and defeat by addressing the legitimate concerns that underpin much of the anger/frustartion with the status quo.