Ummm, so now Labor says they'll support a second referendum.

And at 32 days from Brexit, how, exactly would that happen?

They have to force it in the commons, yes? Do they have remotely enough support for that?

Which means, assuming they got the commons to back it, they have to get TM to back down and request an extension of Article 50? 

What about the Lords?  Don't they have a say in it?

And then there would be several months to set it all up? Another vote? Who would vote, only citizens? And if Brexit was voted down, TM would have to cancel it? What if she refused? Can commons overrule her?

I'm having a bit of trouble following all this, at this point.

Bedlam.

It's insanity. I've had to stop following and make peace with the fact that TM has only her own interests at heart, and whatever happens we will react appropriately at the time. You can't plan for anything right now, there's still way too much unknown.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

What margo said. Frankly, you can't trust a word that woman says, so until its legally binding in some form, I've had to just have a glance at the Brexit news now and again in order to keep some sanity.Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, eh Theresa?

Well I think from a constitutional standpoint, this whole thing has shown a light on the curious overlap of executive and legislative (and judicial). From the broadest possible view, this system has worked somewhat; it has got Britain to where it is: prosperous, safe and stable. And when you look at The Wall fiasco in the US, or the Civil War, or gun control, we can't be too smug about codified constitutions.

Miller stated plainly that when rights are concerned treaties are a legislative function. And that as rights are affected by Brexit, Parliament is ultimately responsible. This was taken care of the next day by a quick bill, but with the meaningful vote question still muddying the waters. If we had a codified constitution instead of a jumble box full of velum we might have some clarity.

To me, the meaningful vote was when Parliament resoundingly rejected May's "plan". And May knew it was going to be rejected for quite some time, probably from the beginning.  May should have, by any measure of reason, resigned at that point (though since she always knew it was going to fail, she probably should have resigned much earlier).

I think that this "going back to bargain again" is clearly against the spirit of meaningful vote, as any vote now will take place on the edge of a cliff. I say "spirit", as I don't think there is any mechanism for the courts to step in. At any rate Parliament, and the parties, have certainly been complicit in not giving any sort of guidance as to what alternative would pass a meaningful vote.

I welcome a second referendum, but can't help feel that it will be hard to avoid the problems associated with the first one. A better idea would to be to admit the first one was deeply flawed and either cancel this madness completely and forget about it, or cancel this madness and set very stringent requirements for any following referendum. A plan for instance. Detailed analysis. Something other than some crap written on the side of a bus.

Further, I think that no matter the outcome, we need a constitutional convention of sorts.

 

My primary issue with Theresa "going back to bargain again" is that it's completely disingenuous of her.  The EU have made it abundantly clear that the deal she brokered is the only deal on the table.  If Parliament has rejected it, she can't accept it without Parliament's approval, and the EU aren't going to renegotiate the terms, then why is she still there, running out the clock?  She's driving us to the cliff's edge just so she can be the one at the wheel for a little bit longer?

As much as I hate to see the people go through this again, I think your second proposal is the best one: declare the first Referendum fundamentally flawed and the result invalid, withdraw our invocation of Article 50, and offer the populace a do-over Referendum that specifically spells out what Remain and Leave would look like, so people know exactly what they're voting for.

To me, the meaningful vote was when Parliament resoundingly rejected May's "plan". And May knew it was going to be rejected for quite some time, probably from the beginning.  May should have, by any measure of reason, resigned at that point (though since she always knew it was going to fail, she probably should have resigned much earlier).

The thing is, though, there was no way anyone was ever going to be able to deliver the Brexit that the Brexiteers voted for. The promise made by the Leave campaign was "We're going to quit the EU while still keeping all the parts of being in the EU we like," despite the fact that from the beginning the EU has said, "No, you're not."

I don't know why May ever thought she'd be able to deliver a "successful" Brexit, one that would appease Leave voters while still being acceptable to the EU. Maybe she thought the EU or the hard Brexiteers would cave in as the deadline approached, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

A better idea would to be to admit the first one was deeply flawed and either cancel this madness completely and forget about it...

This is my dream scenario. At the last minute May says, "Well, we tried our best to come to an agreement, but we haven't gotten anywhere. Delaying Brexit in the hope that something will change is pointless, and crashing out without a deal would be a disaster, so instead I'm unilaterally calling the whole thing off for the good of the country. We're staying in the EU."

That, of course, will never happen. Instead it sounds like they'll agree to delay Brexit for 2 years so we can have another 24 months of May going back and forth across the Channel in between pointless votes in which everyone knows the outcome before they take place. THEN we'll crash out in March of 2021.

Sigh.

[France doesn't tax USA pensions or social security....]

I was just about to make our appointments for April to take the bus to Edinburgh to do the pre-settlement scanning thing at the City Chambers. I think I'll hold off on that a while now. Because it could very well be a moot exercise. (It costs £14 each plus bus fare if we go after Brexit day. If we go before 29 March we also would have to pay the £65 each that they say isn't going to be charged anymore, and then wait for reimbursement of that. Oy. So if there is going to be no charge for the process, why are they still charging the sixty-five quid for the process?)

Camoscsto, while I share your dream scenario, there's just not any resolution in there.  The UK needs to be a full partner in Europe or just GTFO.   In reality, those that don't understand the physics of the impossibility of having your cake and eating it too will never stop moaning until we have some food riots and rationing.

The weirdest thing of my week:  last night I was listening to BBC5 rather late, and they had an interview with a politician who sounded remarkably like Winnie the Pooh. The Daughter walked into the room and asked what Winnie the Pooh was doing on the radio. I told her  he was saying that a hard Brexit was bad....

I'm finally losing it.

Edit - No, no I'm not. It's the shadow trade secretary, or some such. Over the air, on AM with the static, he was WTP. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002p1g  at about 47 in.

Camoscsto, while I share your dream scenario, there's just not any resolution in there.  The UK needs to be a full partner in Europe or just GTFO.   In reality, those that don't understand the physics of the impossibility of having your cake and eating it too will never stop moaning until we have some food riots and rationing.

If history is any guide, they'll find something to blame their problems on no matter what happens.

So they are talking end of June now, maybe?