SKYO wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:33 am
UK lawmakers have voted to reject holding a second referendum on #Brexit.
By a tally of 334 votes to 85, the idea has been shot down.
Yes. For the time being.
Eg Labour said that they do not reject the idea of a second referendum, if all else fails, but now is not the time.
They want to attempt to negotiate a new deal instead of the one May has negotiated first, completely disregarding that the EU has stated that negotiations are now over and the UK must just decide whether they accept the deal or not.
There are basically just three options on the table:
- leaving according to May's deal
- leaving without a deal
- revoking Article 50 and remaining
May's deal has already been rejected twice by parliament, yet she has the audacity to intend to call a third vote on it!
It would be very weird if it suddenly passed, as neither the hard line Brexiteers nor the remainers favour it.
Parliament just voted to reject the option of leaving without a deal. But if nothing happens before March 29th, that is exactly what will happen. With parliament having banned this option, it would look very bad for the May government though, and I guess it could even lead to legal challenges, as parliament are th elaw makers, and their decisions must be respected by the government.
The European Court has announced that the UK has the right to unilaterally revoke Article 50 (the declaration that the UK intends to leave the EU) at any time up till March 29th, and that they in that case remain members of the union. This would definitely lead to an outcry from those who voted for Brexit though, who would feel that they have been betrayed.
(I actually have some issues with the sign; it lacks a comma and should end in a question mark rather than an exclamation one, but, yeah...)
The British have asked for an extension to get more time (probably just to sputter about doing nothing but calling eachother names), but that needs to be approved by all 27 remaining EU member states, with each one having the right of veto.
In my opinion the only way out of this is to hold a second referendum with two questions:
1) Should the deal to leave that May has negotiated with the EU be accepted?
Yes or
No.
2) If May's deal is rejected by the people, what should the consequence be?
Leave without a deal or
Remain.
When the first referendum was held, it was not clear what the implications of Brexit would be.
Some suggested a Norwegian solution, some a Swiss, some a Canadian, some a clean break (ie what would happen under no deal).
Now that there is a negotiated deal on the table, there are three clear cut options, the ones I described above.
This would actually allow the voters to make an informed decision. The consequences of all three options should be clear.
If a majority of the people like the deal May has negotiated, that option should have precedence over the other two options. Thus that question should be asked first. If however, that deal is rejected, I think a lot of those that might favour Brexit would still have qualms about doing it without any deal, so the question then is do you want to do it hardcore or do you want to back away from the abyss?
Oh well. We'll just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
Meanwhile, while we prepare the popcorn, here's a little video to watch. It's actually not what it looks like from the title, but gives a good summary of the extreme positions the UK has held in the Brexit negotiations, compared to the relations the EU has with other neighbours.
