Snap Election Anyone?

[Togo]

Rumours of a General Election on 28th February. Could be fun.

"A General Election could be about to take place.
Three Cabinet Ministers and a further six junior Ministers have instructed their local Associations to prepare for a snap election, according to the New Statesman.
They report that four of them have named 28th February as a possible date. This could move fast.
This coincides with a separate report in the Daily Mail, that the civil service have been told to get ready and draw up plans for a sudden election. Both reports came within hours of each other, is something up?"

https://www.westmonster.com/rumours-swirl-of-snap-election-on-the-cards1/

[gulliver1]

What a good speech from Sir Kier Starmer on telly just. What an excellent MP he is .

[fiction-factory]

Did he say we should honour the wish of the people and do whatever needs to be done to facilitate leaving EU and JC should say something constructive on the subject of Brexit??

[New Judge]

"But who can say where the electorate will go?"

This particular member of the electorate will be going up the pub. There is absolutely no way I am going to waste even a minute of my time voting for any of the 600-odd shower of time-servers, wasters and general incompetents that currently make up the Commons.

This country must be the laughing stock across the globe (among those who can be bothered to take an interest in such a shambles, that is). MPs were given a clear mandate from the electorate of whom the government of the day asked a simple question. The Commons reinforced that mandate five to one. They have singularly failed to deliver on it and look like delivering either nothing at all or a solution that will please nobody, Leavers and Remainers alike. If they seriously believe that voters are going to turn out on a cold wet Thursday to elect another (almost certainly near identical) mob who will move matters no further forward they really do hold the electorate in contempt.

[maggiebee]

Roll on a second Scottish Independence referendum. So sick of the moaners and wingers at Westminster. Couldn't even agree on what time of day it is IMO.

[naomi24]

You're not an EU Remainer then maggiebee?

[jim360]

Every question is simple if you deliberately throw aside the details. Implementing the decision, especially if the economic risks are even half as bad as is made out, cannot be regarded as "simple" in any sense.

There's the paradox. I agree that the referendum gave MPs a moral imperative to work to implement its result, but they must also be responsible for "how". The first option, the Withdrawal Agreement offered by Theresa May, was almost universally rejected, and with good reason. But if "just walking away" is equally damaging, if not more so, then where next?

[fiction-factory]

Maybe, though, jim, those that voted Leave would have been happy "just walking away" regardless of whether they believed the claims that it would be damaging. I voted Remain but i just want us to leave now

[jim360]

Maybe they did, but since they would be dragging at least half the country with them into that potential damage, I am not sure that it's just their decision to make.

[New Judge]

"...but they must also be responsible for "how"."

Agreed, Jim. But they've had two and a half years to do it and their strategy throughout - particularly that of Mrs May and some of her Ministers - has demonstrated unbelievable ineptitude. They passed legislation that means we leave either with a deal or without one on March 29th. The EU has (predictably) offered a totally unsuitable agreement and MPs now they don't like the sound of the legislation they passed less than two years ago. Now it seems they might be expecting the electorate to choose a different bunch of them to perpetuate the shambles they have created. Well they can include me out of that exercise.

[fiction-factory]

>Maybe they did, but since they would be dragging at least half the country with them into that potential damage, I am not sure that it's just their decision to make.
I thought it was a democratic vote.

[jim360]

It *was* a democratic vote, but there is nothing at all in the definition of democracy that implies that votes cannot be revisited. Indeed, precisely the opposite: if a democracy cannot change its mind, then it is no longer a democracy.

[jim360]

// They passed legislation that means we leave either with a deal or without one on March 29th. //

Yes, that was a particularly stupid part of the legislation, and people were calling this at the time. But Tory rebels backed down -- a decision they are now, surely, regretting.

[naomi24]

How many times do you want to re-visit the referendum, Jim? And what would you do if the result of another was the same? Insist we carry on until you get the result that suits you?

[jim360]

Well, at the moment we're getting a result that suits nobody, so I don't see why it's just Remainers who might want to have a second referendum. It's all very well insisting that the only solution, from your point of view, is No Deal, when Parliament will never agree with this and is certain to do everything possible to prevent or delay this outcome.

That avoids the direct question, though. The answer is I don't know. It's not about holding referendums just until I'm on the winning side, or at least I hope it isn't.

[mushroom25]

if you had the power to decide jim, how would you frame the question of a second referendum?
exact repeat of the first? or something else?

[naomi24]

Jim, //It's not about holding referendums//

It’s not? Well, what does //there is nothing at all in the definition of democracy that implies that votes cannot be revisited.// mean then?

[jim360]

The idea I had earlier is a two-stage referendum, where the current Withdrawal Agreement, or something close to it, is voted on at the first stage as a single question: should we leave under these terms or no? The second step, only after this one, would be a virtual repeat of the second question, perhaps with some additional details, and only necessary if the first vote rejects the proposed deal.

Not sure on what the exact wording would be, but I think that a two-step referendum has at least the advantage that it doesn't risk cynically splitting the Leave vote to allow Remain to sneak a win in some kind of First Past the Post arrangement; and I don't believe that a three-question ballot in any format is sensible.

[New Judge]

We keep going round in circles.

All that's needed is an agreed definition of "Leaving". The EU's "agreement" and the definition held by most of the current MPs' of that word seems to fall short somewhat and is at odds with what the electorate was told leaving would mean prior to casting their votes in the referendum. All the argument in the Commons is about keeping the UK in the EU to a greater or lesser degree and electing 650 (probably mainly the same) people to that hallowed place will not move matters forward.

[Kromovaracun]

Regarding the Tory leadership, I guess in theory there is nothing to stop May from just breaking her promise not to stand at the next election. She can't be challenged again until December.

I appreciate it's difficult to see how a GE could get through parliament. But Labour and the SNP would surely vote for it so the only challenge would be getting numbers on the Tory side. If the alternative is the govt falling apart anyway it's not unfeasible that some conservatives might support it.

[naomi24]

Would your questions include 'Leave with No Deal'?