BMG

[The Bishop]

The real issue for me is that any attempt to get a second referendum or similar would have to involve an attempt to win over at least some leave voters to have any legitimacy. But no, with very few exceptions self-styled "remain" campaigners have acted since summer 2016 as if 17.5 million people don't actually exist. And that's because for many the main motivation was never "stopping Brexit" but using it as a wedge issue to regain control of the non-Tory forces in this country.

[andrew111]

Dec 9, 2019 9:41:31 GMT Merseymike said:

No party ever said anything about the advisory status of the referendum during it - I think this is one of the key reasons why there has become such a hardening of view since the referendum. The appearance has been people who said they would implement it saying they don't wish to.
The reason Ed Miliband didn't want a referendum was his view that Labour could not implement a leave outcome. If that was our view then we should have made it clear during the referendum. But we didn't.

I still think that the view in the country is effectively 50-50. And I question whether it's really possible to remain in a political union when half the population doesn't want to be part of it.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

[Merseymike]

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 9:41:31 GMT Merseymike said:

No party ever said anything about the advisory status of the referendum during it - I think this is one of the key reasons why there has become such a hardening of view since the referendum. The appearance has been people who said they would implement it saying they don't wish to.
The reason Ed Miliband didn't want a referendum was his view that Labour could not implement a leave outcome. If that was our view then we should have made it clear during the referendum. But we didn't.

I still think that the view in the country is effectively 50-50. And I question whether it's really possible to remain in a political union when half the population doesn't want to be part of it.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

But that's not how it works. Everyone's vote is equal.
Might have helped if the remain campaign hadn't been so dire

[Devil Wincarnate]

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 9:41:31 GMT Merseymike said:

No party ever said anything about the advisory status of the referendum during it - I think this is one of the key reasons why there has become such a hardening of view since the referendum. The appearance has been people who said they would implement it saying they don't wish to.
The reason Ed Miliband didn't want a referendum was his view that Labour could not implement a leave outcome. If that was our view then we should have made it clear during the referendum. But we didn't.

I still think that the view in the country is effectively 50-50. And I question whether it's really possible to remain in a political union when half the population doesn't want to be part of it.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

Could have said the same about when the Lib Dems held Southport...

[The Bishop]

Back to this actual poll, despite its headline figures it showed a definite swing from Johnson to Corbyn in its "best PM" ratings.

(and 39-32 isn't that big a gap at all)

[tonygreaves]

In practical political terms the reason we will leave the EU (if we do) is the incompetence of Corbyn and he Labour Party. They could have voted for a referendum any time in the last year. Now they pretend they want one (but tell Leavers they will have a good deal so we will be able to leave anyway). It is the most dishonest political trick in my lifetime. History will see it as such.

[The Bishop]

I thought the LibDems had swung back to supporting another referendum as well?

(and most Labour MPs *did* vote for a referendum in the past year - they just couldn't get enough others to agree with them)

Just face it, your revoke line has been a disaster in practical terms as well as undemocratic and (yes) illiberal.

[jamie]

Dec 9, 2019 15:38:11 GMT tonygreaves said:

In practical political terms the reason we will leave the EU (if we do) is the incompetence of Corbyn and he Labour Party. They could have voted for a referendum any time in the last year. Now they pretend they want one (but tell Leavers they will have a good deal so we will be able to leave anyway). It is the most dishonest political trick in my lifetime. History will see it as such.

Agree on the incompetence point. However, the vast majority of Labour MPs have voted for a 2nd referendum but there was simply not a majority for it in Parliament. And what’s wrong with trying to get a good deal to put to a 2nd referendum? Should only a crap deal be agreed to rig it in favour of us voting to remain? 

[pragmaticidealist]

Dec 9, 2019 15:23:25 GMT The Bishop said:

Back to this actual poll, despite its headline figures it showed a definite swing from Johnson to Corbyn in its "best PM" ratings.

(and 39-32 isn't that big a gap at all)

It's pretty rare for the Leader of the Opposition to be ahead of the incumbent Prime Minister at any time on that score. There's the example of Mori having Thatcher 19% behind Callaghan on the eve of the 1979 election.

[Adam in Stroud]

Dec 9, 2019 15:44:52 GMT The Bishop said:

I thought the LibDems had swung back to supporting another referendum as well?

(and most Labour MPs *did* vote for a referendum in the past year - they just couldn't get enough others to agree with them)

Just face it, your revoke line has been a disaster in practical terms as well as undemocratic and (yes) illiberal.

1. Not as such, the policy was always a referendum if we weren't the govt, Revoke was and still is the policy if we were. What's changed is whether or not it's worth discussing the latter.

2. Not a massive fan of Revoke myself, but it can be defended as democratic (as only achievable in event of a LD govt which, under FPTP would require a significantly higher vote share than would be needed for Johnson's deal.) It is only undemocratic if trumped by the 2017 Referendum result, but that disenfranchises anyone who did not have a vote in 2017. It is a point which can be argued either way.

3. Can't really argue the illiberal point without clarification of why you consider it so. Undemocratic (even if true) is not the same as illiberal - our view on EU membership is that it is a liberal policy because it preserves individual freedoms guaranteed via the EU including access to ECHR and FoM.

4. Not convinced that the alternative - PV - would have been less open to attack. Up to the point we adopted Revoke, the standard line was that a PV undemocratically ignores the 2016 Ref - it is only since we adopted Revoke that the concept that a 2nd Ref would be legitimate has gained ground.

5. I don't believe the policy has had much influence on our fall in the polls, I think it is 2-party herding which was always on the cards if Farage bottled it.

But I am not going to argue that Revoke and it's presentation hasn't been a mistake. It's architects don't seem to have understood that, having designed it to grab the media agenda the latter would (quite rightly) see it as their job to act as devil's advocate against it, and it would immediately be attacked as undemocratic It was essential to have a one-sentence argument for it, a one-sentence defence to the democratic argument; plus a soundbite equal to "Get Brexit Done" - something like "Just make it stop" - with Swinson drilled into delivering it in the face of the nastiest shoutiest interviewers and audiences. And failing to do that is a bigger issue than the actual arguments IMO - people remember an impression of either having an answer or not more than the actual answer. If the Beeb are going to only give us time slots equivalent to our 2017 vote share we can't afford to spend them on the back foot dealing with a single issue.

BTW the fact that a well-informed poster such as yourself perceives that we have abandoned Revoke altogether just goes to show how the need to have clear explanations still has not been addressed.

[Adam in Stroud]

FWIW I don't like either PV or Revoke because they are process-led rather than values or policy led.

I appreciate that you need to have a workable process in your locker when asked the nasty questions and it was worth working out what ours would be, but it's much better to be saying: We support EU membership because liberalism is about freedom and EU rights are citizens' rights (values) and A Lib Dem govt would keep the UK in the EU (policy) than to hang up on the process.

If the public don't buy into either the values or the policy then we aren't getting elected anyway. It's only when people are saying "Yes! We all want that too! But how can you do it?" that process is needed. By that point, if the values and policy are popular, people will buy the process. But this way round we have to defend the process and we haven't even won the policy argument.

[Pimpernal]

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 9:41:31 GMT Merseymike said:

No party ever said anything about the advisory status of the referendum during it - I think this is one of the key reasons why there has become such a hardening of view since the referendum. The appearance has been people who said they would implement it saying they don't wish to.
The reason Ed Miliband didn't want a referendum was his view that Labour could not implement a leave outcome. If that was our view then we should have made it clear during the referendum. But we didn't.

I still think that the view in the country is effectively 50-50. And I question whether it's really possible to remain in a political union when half the population doesn't want to be part of it.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life experience under whichever regime, Remain would lose overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very right with what we are doing.

[courtenay]

Dec 9, 2019 16:29:29 GMT Pimpernal said:

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life experience under whichever regime, Remain would lose overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very right with what we are doing.

Both of those suggestions are nauseating anti-democratic bollocks.

[andrew111]

Dec 9, 2019 16:33:24 GMT courtenay said:

Dec 9, 2019 16:29:29 GMT Pimpernal said:

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life experience under whichever regime, Remain would lose overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very right with what we are doing.

Both of those suggestions are nauseating anti-democratic bollocks.

This is a generational change but the generation most affected is being ignored. THAT is the nauseating "we know best for you" bollocks from people who should have abstained on principle

[andrew111]

Dec 9, 2019 14:31:27 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

Could have said the same about when the Lib Dems held Southport...

Yes indeed. We need PR (which is also the reason I dislike Revoke, and said so at the time. NO government in living memory has had a mandate to do anything, with the coalition being the nearest thing)

[Richard Allen]

Dec 9, 2019 14:17:30 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 9:41:31 GMT Merseymike said:

No party ever said anything about the advisory status of the referendum during it - I think this is one of the key reasons why there has become such a hardening of view since the referendum. The appearance has been people who said they would implement it saying they don't wish to.
The reason Ed Miliband didn't want a referendum was his view that Labour could not implement a leave outcome. If that was our view then we should have made it clear during the referendum. But we didn't.

I still think that the view in the country is effectively 50-50. And I question whether it's really possible to remain in a political union when half the population doesn't want to be part of it.

If you were to weight Brexit opinion by actuarial life expectancy under the chosen regime, Remain would win overwhelmingly. This is the thing that is so very wrong with what we are doing.

Hard to imagine why your loathsome little party is so unpopular with the voters.

[spqr]

Some of the continuity Remainers on this forum really have excelled themselves today.

Just to recap, on one thread we have someone informing us that gaining more votes than the other side in a referendum means that the other side win after all, and here we seem to have another someone suggesting that it was wrong for elderly voters to vote in the EU referendum at all; they should have forfeited their democratic rights en masse and 'abstained in principle', because a national vote has an impact on the future and that is apparently no business of the old. Presumably this principle is to be extended to general elections as well.

Here's a piece of genuine advice for the posters in question: if your worst nightmare does come to pass and we leave the EU, do yourselves a favour and start the Rejoin campaign in earnest rather than indulge in this sort of insulting crap, which convinces no one but the loon diehards on your side. 

[Devil Wincarnate]

Dec 9, 2019 17:25:40 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 14:31:27 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Could have said the same about when the Lib Dems held Southport...

Yes indeed. We need PR (which is also the reason I dislike Revoke, and said so at the time. NO government in living memory has had a mandate to do anything, with the coalition being the nearest thing)

I'd prefer PR, but let's not pretend that it hasn't produced governments with no mandate in the electoral sense. The last Venstre administration in Denmark jumps out at me (and the last Danish Conservative one come to think of it) , the FDP bed-hop in the Eighties that took out Schmidt and brought Kohl in, and probably Fine Gael in Ireland.

[mrpastelito]

Dec 9, 2019 17:20:36 GMT andrew111 said:

Dec 9, 2019 16:33:24 GMT courtenay said:

Both of those suggestions are nauseating anti-democratic bollocks.

This is a generational change but the generation most affected is being ignored. THAT is the nauseating "we know best for you" bollocks from people who should have abstained on principle

The generation most affected in 1975 voted overwhelmingly Leave in 2016. Wonder why.

[Robert Waller]

"The generation most affected in 1975 voted overwhelmingly Leave in 2016. Wonder why."

Yes, I'd prefer not to consign one person one vote to the scrapheap myself, but if we are going to start weighting, it could be argued that it should be done by adult experience of living under the EEC/EC/EU.
One vote could be allocated for each year experienced, so 1 for those aged 18 up progressively to 46 votes for those aged 64 who were 18 when the UK 'entered Europe' in 1973.
(Aged 64 and above. I'm not going to advocate 58 votes for those born in 1943, for example!)

I suspect that would end all this talk about how close the 2016 referendum was...