If the ref result was binding (given your "remain was rejected" statement, it sounds like you wish it was and treating it as such), would you have been happy that the ref would have to take place again due to vote leave breaking electoral law?

Cant exactly have it both ways. unless were happy that breaking the law to get the things we want is acceptable nowadays.

Is that actually true (binding referendum would -> mandatory rerun)? i.e is it something a broad range of respected U.K electoral law experts agree on?

fyp

think the latter but i did see this the other week

Do you have a link?

did a 1 minute google. couldnt find much so could very well be fake news tbf. saw some news articles saying similar from late 2018 but none as concrete as that tweet ^

Not ignoring it. Before the referendum remaining was the default, now remainers need to win a referendum (or possibly a GE with a crystal clear remain commitment) or we are going to leave. That's a very significant objective difference because of the referendum but it also means that the remain camp is in a much worse political position than it was before the referendum.

Pretty sure it can't be as it would have required legislation to make the referendum binding and it would depend on what that legislation said. The recent court ruling* didn't find common electoral law sufficient as that would require material evidence that the result had been changed and said there was no such evidence. The court also found that the common law didn't apply to the referendum because it wasn't binding.

So it would be very speculative to claim with ny certainty that if it had been binding then the hypothetical legislation would have invalidated it based on what we know now.

* full ruling is here: https://www.ukineuchallenge.com/wp-c...-of-Appeal.pdf

Do you think it's reasonable for the second ref to actually entirely exclude the winning result of ref 1 from among its choices (ie leaving ze EU) given it is the one that is the clear leading choice among those who actually want to leave?

The current parliament can take the lead and say only viable paths forward are:
1. forget about Brexit
2. May's soft Brexit that's pretty close to remain

Then you guys can try to elect MPs that will give you the option for NO DEAL.

Reality can be a ***** sometimes. Even Boris doesn't actually believe you can have the cake and eat it too.

CGP Grey videos are the nuts! There's another one too:

the **** is a codpiece?

I still have hopes that City of London (and London) will become an independent city state.

Why do you and other brexiteers not want to follow the will of the people?

Remainers are campaigning to find out what the people want and then follow it. Do they want that to be remain, sure, but they are not calling for another bogus fraudulent referendum like you are.

If we wanted to do this right we should have had a second referendum two years ago before the triggering of A50 to find out what sort of deal people want. But we didn't, so the only logical conclusion is to put to the people a referendum where we either accept the best deal the government could get based on parameters no one ever agreed to or we withdraw article 50.

We were told all along we wouldn't leave without a deal so let's hold brexiteers to their word.

Remainers want to remain. They don't care two figs about the will of the people, else they'd be fine with a wto leave option as a choice in a second referendum. I'd personally be fine with remain on the sheet as long as there's a proper leave option too, but it'll be taken by many, maybe even a majority, that there is wilful betrayal of the first referendum result by the elite classes.

What I think is disgusting is the attempt to not have a proper leave choice on the paper.


Are you saying EVERYONE has said they didn't want no deal for the last two years? LOL, seriously? Maybe in your little bubble. You need to get out more.

May's deal is leaving the EU but I accept it is unreasonable to not offer something that is quite likely more what brexiters want. We've talked about this before and and I place the blame firmly with the leave camp just as I will put the failure to remain firmly in the hands of the remain camp - both have been shockingly bad when it was all there to win.

If we end up remaining then 90% of the credit will go to the brexiter turkeys who voted for christmas by rejecting may's deal. I still fear they wont be that stupid.

I don't care what was said after the referendum. I want to hold them to their words before the referendum.

There is no sane person calling to leave on WTO terms. The nearest that exists openly admits it will destroy the entire uk manufacturing and farming economy.

Now as someone in financial services I won't be effected, provided I ignore my tendencies to consume food and purchase goods.

By definition it is not a proper leave option.

There are only three choices:
1, withdraw a50 and admit we made a huge silly mistake and then optionally hang the traitors who sold us out
2, delay withdrawal for two years, give number 10 to Corbyn and let him negotiate under the labour terms for a deal, which are fairly reasonable
3, accept May's deal

I can live with 2 right now and doesn't require any input from the people with a referendum. I can live with 1 or 3 after a referendum confirming the will of the people.

Now would be a good time to wonder what brexiteers even want if Mays deal doesn't achieve it.

It ticks literally every single box. We even get to avoid a border either on Ireland or in the Irish Sea just as soon as the brexiteers finish developing their technical solution.

They usually said they want everything - the right to have the best deals already negotiated by the EU, the right to make our own deals where we think we can do better, the end to free movement of people, no customs union, ECJ etc.

Every sane person told them from the outset that the EU would never make all these concessions but still they blathered on, with Davis perhaps being the most ludicrously unrealistic of them all.

No, what leavers want is simple - to leave the EU. You projecting every single thing some leaver has said ever onto what what all leavers want is silly. I specifically don't remember anyone saying we'd get same or better deals with other countries. It's about it being under our control, not about it being better.

As usual, remainers try to argue the specifics and completely fail to realise it's about the principles.

I get you have to make it some holy crusade to remain and choose to ignore the history and forward trend of gutless here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians giving away national sovereignty to an organisation that has no comebacks or direct responsibility to voters for the various failures it perpetrates on its members, and you think if people knew better, they'd want to be in the EU.

I personally contend that if people knew more about the EU, there would be more people that want to leave it. I put a solid part of the young voting much more in favour of remaining in the EU as being down to they don't know that much about how it works and what its real goals are.

You can't have another referendum where the choice is between remain and (what leavers perceive as) a very bad deal. That's like I promise my wife I'll take her to the cinema for her birthday and then offer her a choice between a film I know she doesn't want to see and no film. It's a stitch up.

You need to offer Leavers something they're happy enough with whether that's No Deal or let JRM negotiate or whatever. Talk with them and make a good faith effort to find what they're interested in. I'd rather see a referendum between May's deal & no deal than May's deal & remain. I'd choose ranked choice voting over both of them but the second one is anti-democratic.

BTW, leavers. What is your preferred plausible outcome? Like if you want no deal how do you think that happens (I don't see a method other than a referendum which I'm confident no deal would lose, ymmv)?

This Guardian article indicates Tories are circling around May. Let's say she resigns as P.M or as Tory leader (staying on as PM in an interim basis) what is the path to a better Brexit?

I don't know how you can closely follow three+ years of Brexit debate and not believe "better trade deals" was a prominent leitmotif of the leave campaign. That's just crazy.

Yeah, he said 'all along' so I took it to mean the whole shebang including the campaign and the 3 years since, rather than just the campaign part. I agree that was big part of the campaign (but I think the emphasis was more on 'faster' than 'better' - and to cast your mind back to 3 years ago, the EU were notoriously glacially slow at doing trade deals, but I could be misremembering that emphasis), but wto leaving has been a significant part of the leave discussion since pretty much article 50 was triggered. I'm pretty sure there was calls for no deal preparations to start pretty much straight after A50 was triggered.