Justine Greening has just come out in favour of a second Brexit referendum. This is something I’m all in favour of. For Ms Greening doesn’t exactly have a reputation as one of the world’s Great Thinkers and so it is here. For the terms she’s laid out mean that the decision to leave will simply be underlined. Which really isn’t a sign of that great intelligence, is it? If you’re going to propose a vote on such a thing the idea is to make sure you phrase it so that your side wins, not the other:
Justine Greening became the most high profile Conservative to endorse the idea of a second referendum, to end what she said would be a likely parliamentary deadlock over Brexit, warning that Theresa May’s Chequers plan did not represent “a workable compromise” that a majority of MPs could get behind.
There is a good reason against such an idea of course. We’ve already had a vote, we the people have said we’re leaving so, we’re leaving. The talk of a second such vote is a combination of Remainer wishful thinking and the standard EU policy – the people should keep voting until they give the right answer at which point no further discussion is to be allowed.
The prime minister’s effort to keep Britain in parts of the single market is the “worst of both worlds” and will satisfy no one, the former education secretary says in an article for The Times.
With the main parties divided, Ms Greening believes that even a free vote in parliament will not confer legitimacy on the final deal.
“The only solution is to take the final Brexit decision out of the hands of deadlocked politicians, away from the backroom deals, and give it back to the people,” she writes.
Hmm, well, yes, except that’s the thing we’ve already one with that first referendum – the one that’s causing all the complaining – isn’t it? However, the specific proposal she makes is one that I’d support. For the devilment of it rather than anything else:
This shouldn’t be a divisive, binary choice. Two years on, the practical Brexit options are now clear and the public should be asked to choose between the three paths facing our country: the PM’s final negotiated Brexit deal, staying in the EU, or a clean Brexit break and leaving with no deal. Crucially, the referendum should give the public a first and second preference vote, allowing a consensus finally to be found.
It’s possible to weight that, isn’t it? There’s not leave, not really leave, and leave. Last time around not leave and leave split 48/52. Now that we’ve split the not leave vote, the result will be what percentage in favour of really leave?
But then yes, Darling Justine has never really been praised for her intellectual firepower, has she?
Plus “not leave” is not an option unless all 27 members agree plus the EU parliament (I think that’s right), which they won’t, not all of them, at least not without further negotiation about giving up rebates and opt-outs. It’s delusional.
Not wishing to defend ‘thick as mince’ Greening, but isn’t the ‘splitting the vote’ argument less relevant with a transferable vote (as she proposes)? Mind you, if the ComRes(?) poll in today’s Mirror is anything like correct, ‘no deal’ would walk it. The real problem is that it would add another 12 months of uncertainty (given that’s how long it would take our clueless leaders and civil servants to organise such a vote). Even if there might be a short term hit from dislocations caused by leaving on WTO terms (A hae ma doots), it’s been far outweighed by two… Read more »
I think the public will see the choices something like:
a: Don’t rock the boat,
b: leave nicely, and
c: leave violently.
Thus the leave vote will be split down the middle giving remainers the “correct” result and “the UK has come to its senses”
We had a “once in a generation” referendum two years ago. If MPs, who were elected on a manifesto promising to take us out of the EU are in any way conflicted about carrying out their own promises then resignation is their only honourable course.
If they ignore both the last referendum and their own election promises what would be the point of a third referendum.
Especially as opinion appears to be hardening against the EU.
The time has come for UKIP to function as a party seeking office rather than the pressure group it has been up to now.
No one goes to Westminster to “measure” anything but to get one’s way, and Tim sets out the cynical way one uses repeat elections to get one’s way.
Agree with QV that another election prolongs the uncertainty (which was originally the reason to vote Bremain!). Agree with Pat that MPs have a clear mandate. If you need help understanding this, look over here at the governing party finally with the power to implement their 7-year slogan of “Repeal Obama-care,” which became the undefinable “Repeal and Replace” and is now the “We gave it a good College Try.”
She’s smarter than you think. A second referendum would be run in a way that makes it very hard for the government to lose (eg. having three options on the ballot).
We won. No need to vote again. Get on with it.
In the event of another referendum Leave should focus on how difficult it is to get out and that past Parliaments have come close to tying the hands of future Parliaments. Imagine what it would be like with a dose of more Ever Closer Union?We should get out now, no matter how painful, so that our children and grand children aren’t locked in forever and can make their own decisions.
I’m sure those campaigning for a second, so-called people’s* referendum will want to ensure that the ‘mistakes’ of the first are not repeated. So overturning the result must require a minimum 80% turnout and 60% majority. Not to do so would be rank hypocrisy, wouldn’t it?
* a lovely term, redolent of “people’s democratic republic”
We won. No need to vote again. Get on with it.
I’m sure those campaigning for a second, so-called people’s* referendum will want to ensure that the ‘mistakes’ of the first are not repeated. So overturning the result must require a minimum 80% turnout and 60% majority. Not to do so would be rank hypocrisy, wouldn’t it?
* a lovely term, redolent of “people’s democratic republic”
In the event of another referendum Leave should focus on how difficult it is to get out and that past Parliaments have come close to tying the hands of future Parliaments. Imagine what it would be like with a dose of more Ever Closer Union?We should get out now, no matter how painful, so that our children and grand children aren’t locked in forever and can make their own decisions.
She’s smarter than you think. A second referendum would be run in a way that makes it very hard for the government to lose (eg. having three options on the ballot).
Plus “not leave” is not an option unless all 27 members agree plus the EU parliament (I think that’s right), which they won’t, not all of them, at least not without further negotiation about giving up rebates and opt-outs. It’s delusional.
We had a “once in a generation” referendum two years ago. If MPs, who were elected on a manifesto promising to take us out of the EU are in any way conflicted about carrying out their own promises then resignation is their only honourable course.
If they ignore both the last referendum and their own election promises what would be the point of a third referendum.
Especially as opinion appears to be hardening against the EU.
The time has come for UKIP to function as a party seeking office rather than the pressure group it has been up to now.
No one goes to Westminster to “measure” anything but to get one’s way, and Tim sets out the cynical way one uses repeat elections to get one’s way.
Agree with QV that another election prolongs the uncertainty (which was originally the reason to vote Bremain!). Agree with Pat that MPs have a clear mandate. If you need help understanding this, look over here at the governing party finally with the power to implement their 7-year slogan of “Repeal Obama-care,” which became the undefinable “Repeal and Replace” and is now the “We gave it a good College Try.”
I think the public will see the choices something like:
a: Don’t rock the boat,
b: leave nicely, and
c: leave violently.
Thus the leave vote will be split down the middle giving remainers the “correct” result and “the UK has come to its senses”
Not wishing to defend ‘thick as mince’ Greening, but isn’t the ‘splitting the vote’ argument less relevant with a transferable vote (as she proposes)? Mind you, if the ComRes(?) poll in today’s Mirror is anything like correct, ‘no deal’ would walk it. The real problem is that it would add another 12 months of uncertainty (given that’s how long it would take our clueless leaders and civil servants to organise such a vote). Even if there might be a short term hit from dislocations caused by leaving on WTO terms (A hae ma doots), it’s been far outweighed by two… Read more »