Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?

[ToraToraTora]

It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.

[naomi24]

//There is no spinning whatsoever in anything I have said about why the electorate may have, and indeed has, changed since then. //

And indeed has? Has it? No spin there then.

[jim360]

Yes, it has. I pointed out several ways in which the electorate has changed since 2016, not least all of the new potential voters who were between 15 and 18, who were legally unable to vote then, and who can vote now. That represents just one of a number of changes.

[jim360]

As you say, Pixie, I'm a scientist. So in that case, let's not go with "proof", because it's an impossible standard outside the field of mathematics, as you well know.

[ichkeria]

100,000 new voter registrations in the last few days.
Kids watching BBC Parliament on their laptops in the pub)
It’s all good stuff :-)

[New Judge]

//The UK would have continued to be a member of the EU, but would not have chosen to join Schengen, the Euro, give back the rebate, cede our veto rights, etc etc.//

Quite so Jim. But far easier to say that we would have carried on as before, as if there had been no referendum and that no accommodation would have been made for the narrowness of the margin. All the things you mention are not part of a "soft" remain as you quaintly put it. Those conditions were the ones the UK had enjoyed before the referendum (along with other conditions enjoyed by some long-standing members) and which it would have continued to enjoy whether we had a referendum or not. A narrow vote to remain would not have made one iota of difference - and nor should it have. The losers would have lost. Your idea that there may have been a push from some quarters for a second referendum may hold some water but that would not have changed the conditions under which we remained. Whenever people speak of accommodation being made for the 48% and I ask this question most of them are sincere enough to say that there would have been none whatsoever. This is what you are saying but please don't dress it up. There may be a "soft" option when it comes to leaving but there is no such alternative when it comes to remaining.

[naomi24]

// I pointed out several ways in which the electorate has changed since 2016, not least all of the new potential voters who were between 15 and 18, who were legally unable to vote then, and who can vote now. That represents just one of a number of changes. //

But that wasn't what you implied, was it Jim. And round you go again.

[jim360]

No, that was exactly what I implied, Naomi, because I literally stated it earlier.

If the only line of reply you have is to continue these utterly false accusations of spin then that's not my problem. Maybe if you bothered to read my posts in full you would have seen me say it earlier.

[jim360]

It's a matter of interpretation, NJ. I think that everything I stated is perfectly right to be termed "soft" remain, because abandoning any or all of those positions would have seen us more deeper into the EU, which is something I think most Remain voters wouldn't have been comfortable with either.

[naomi24]

Jim, //No, that was exactly what I implied, Naomi, because I literally stated it earlier.//

Hmmmm .... If you weren’t saying that the electorate, because of the newly registered, would vote differently now, what were you saying?

[jim360]

Oh... I think I see what you mean, now. I hope I do, anyway.

The electorate has materially changed since 2016. That is the change I was referring to. If the question of remaining or leaving were put to the electorate again, would they change their mind? That I don't know, and don't claim to know. What evidence there is available suggests that, whatever the result, it would be close again, and therefore highly sensitive to which side turns out.

What I am arguing, then, is that holding a second referendum is entirely democratic. That is true on its own merits, and has nothing to do with any belief or hope that the result would be different.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

[naomi24]

Jim, //What I am arguing, then, is that holding a second referendum is entirely democratic.//

Not when the result of the first one hasn’t been respected (as promised) and implemented (as promised). Ignoring the result of the first is entirely undemocratic – and that’s exactly what is happening....but you know that.

[jim360]

Well, yes, we disagree on that point. See earlier in this thread for my argument against, including the point that even many on your side, the most vocal Leave campaigners, held that a second referendum on the terms of a subsequent deal was democratic. But I think earlier you had the impression that I was calling for a second one because I thought (or knew, or believed I knew) that the result would be different this time. I don't know any such thing. I hope it would be different, clearly -- but that is as far as it goes.

[jim360]

I do feel that I should again stress that I have no intention of "ignoring the result". A second referendum doesn't have that effect. All it can do is overrule it, and it only achieves that if, by definition, the people today decide that they want to make a different decision. As I said in a reply to Pixie, even that won't mark the end of the matter, and the people would be perfectly free to change their mind again, at a future opportunity and assuming that they have elected politicians who support them.

None of this is undemocratic, and none of it is about ignoring anything, and saying so is not spin.

[naomi24]

Jim, simply failing to implement the result is ignoring it. No ifs and buts .... remember?

[Spicerack]

//I don't understand why you need to ask a question again that I have already answered clearly several times. Still, let me try: The UK would have continued to be a member of the EU, but would not have chosen to join Schengen, the Euro, give back the rebate, cede our veto rights, etc etc. All of this would ensure that the UK would have continued to "soft remain"//

Who are you trying to kid?.

[Spicerack]

^Jim.

[New Judge]

//What I am arguing, then, is that holding a second referendum is entirely democratic.//

Whether or not it is democratic is hardly the issue. It could be argued that any referendum is democratic. Perhaps a better question is "why should one be held?"

The electorate may have materially changed since the last effort but why should the decision made in 2016 be open to possible reversal? That decision has not yet been implemented let alone tested. And as far as I am aware, all that has changed since then is that the EU has predictably come up with its list of demands which it insists we must meet in order not to be caused too much trouble; and MPs have decided that their interpretation of Brexit must trump all others to such a degree that we are effectively faced with agreeing to the list of demands (which they will not accede to) or not leave at all. Are you suggesting that since the EU refuses to alter its (entirely predicable) stance, the electorate should be asked again what they want?

[jim360]

Yes, I remember what Cameron et al said. I've also tackled that earlier in this thread. If he had *meant* "no ifs no buts", and properly prepared to implement a Leave decision, then I am sure we would have left by now. But there was no such plan. I cannot express properly how angry I am about that.

But, yet again, I make no apology for caring about the detail of how the result is implemented. Propose a sensible version of that that can command the unequivocal support of the country -- hell, I will even settle for a version of Brexit that is universally agreed upon by Brexit supporters -- and I will listen to it. For the time being, at least, there are only two versions of Brexit on offer, and they are both unacceptable to large swathes of the country, and for that matter to large swathes of Leave voters.

[jim360]

As long as we are conducting a serious debate, I will never try to kid anyone, Spicey. It's boring to have to continue to restate what should be obvious: you may fundamentally disagree with me, but we are both honest in what we think, and in what we say.

The Eurosceptic streak in the UK isn't confined to Leave voters, then. Various people have flirted with adopting the Euro, or whatever, but they never commanded support for that. I don't see how that situation would have changed following a Remain vote. We simply wouldn't have gone "all in" on being EU members.

[New Judge]

//I think that everything I stated is perfectly right to be termed "soft" remain, because abandoning any or all of those positions would have seen us more deeper into the EU,//

But there was never any possibility of abandoning those positions, Jim. It simply wasn't a consideration. To now say that had there been a narrow vote to remain we would have kept those positions only as a sop to the disappointed Leavers is simply preposterous. They would have remained whatever the margin of victory for the Remainers was or even if there had been no referendum at all. I think you're struggling and I'd much rather you say that no consideration would have been given for the 48% of Leavers. They would simply have been told "That's it. Let's move on" which is how it should have been.