Q: Just say it is late 2018. Britain and the EU have just agreed a Withdrawal Agreement (WA) with us largely under EU control until 2021, losing existing voting power. The future relationship declaration is non-committal. Would there be a second referendum?

 

 

Sacked minister Justine Greening wants a complicated referendum with 3 options – accept the deal, leave with no deal or remain in the EU. Voters would also get a second choice! Sammy Wilson MP responded that voters had already had referendums to reject the EU and Alternative Voting!

BIRDS OF A FEATHER? Greening (Times) and Mandelson (Guardian) both urged a second referendum, but their articles made the same error on being unable to influence EU rules. As former Trade Commissioner Mandelson would know better – this points to their articles being orchestrated.

The government wouldn’t want a referendum. Apart from splitting the Conservative Party and reviving deep public tensions from 2016, it would take up precious Parliamentary time. Organising a poll and appointing official campaigns would be on impossibly tight timescales unless the Brexit date was put back.
The uncertainty might not actually appeal to the EU either! Bureaucrats in Brussels are overloaded with trying to get EU legislation through while the current European Parliament and Commission are still in place and would not relish the possible disruption to their preparations and extra work. However, it was noted that EU leaders quietly agreed to keep MEP seats for Britain in the event that we did not leave before July 2019!!! So, the possibility can’t be ruled out.

The EU (Withdrawal) Act doesn’t repeal the European Union Act 2011 until we leave the EU, but as current plans won’t give the EU new powers, no referendum should be triggered.

It’s a hard call how MPs would vote on the WA. Most Leaver MPs would probably vote for it to ensure Brexit, salving their consciences that it is only a temporary deal and their vote keeps Jeremy Corbyn out of power. Although Tory Remoaners will bawl “worse than EU membership”, they typically fall into line in practice.

With their 2017 manifesto preaching the benefits of the Single Market, Labour MPs might think twice about voting down legislation that kept Britain in it. On balance, a soft Brexit would probably get passed.

Greening’s line that “the final decision” should be for the people and “out of deadlocked politicians’ hands” is a joke. The deal being voted on is only interim (Transition) and the final deal should be ready towards the run up to the 2022 General Election.

Article produced by Brian Mooney of Resistance

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

14 comments

  1. Adam HileyReply

    a 2nd referendum is insulting to the 17 million leavers We need to just leave now and remove May’s Government and keep out the odious Corbyn led Labour Party

  2. Jason BReply

    If the remainders would have won as predicted by the same margin, we certainly would have had a case to fight for as David Cameron spent 9 million of our money in sending out leaflets for us to remain. A bias act indeed. Well pointed out by Sammy Wilson that we have already been given a vote on alternative voting. The government have been well and truly caught out in their own craftiness.

    • StevenReply

      Justine Greening and other remainers are playing a very canny game. They want a ‘final say’ referendum but such a referendum if it came about would NOT involve the Alternative Vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting) but be based upon First Past The Post principles ie NO FORM OF PREFERENTIAL VOTING and a voter ONLY HAVING ONE VOTE AND THEREFORE ONLY ABLE TO BE USED FOR ONE OPTION thus in their hypothetical referendum the ‘Yes to Brexit’ side’s vote would be split between whatever laughable ‘deal’ the present shower in government manages to come-up with ie a Brexit In Name Only (BINO) and a ‘REAL’ Brexit option ie ‘no deal’ and then there would be the ‘no to Brexit/Let’s call this damm thing off and stay-in’ option. The latter option would have a head start because the split is on the pro-Brexit side and also because remainers in the press and the rest of the media would (indeed, already are) starting a campaign to scare the living daylights out of the British electorate about the propsect of a ‘no deal’ and what may happen if that situation happens. Therefore, the ‘no to Brexit’/let’s call this damm thing off and stay-in’ route could very well succeed.

  3. John AshworthReply

    Our Westminster parliament is based on the people vote their representative to Parliament, as their MP, and if not satisfied in his/her performance can get rid of that person, and replace by someone else.

    If that representative is continually calling for a referendum, they are throwing the responsibility given to them by the people, back to the people, and undermine the very reason why they were elected in the first place.

    Our Westminster MP’s should get on with their job, which sadly many have forgotten what it is.

  4. Simon Blanchard`Reply

    You don’t have to be a genius to work out that Greenings proposed referendum is designed to split the Leaver vote, not the Tories.
    We’ve already made the decision to leave the EU and no deal is better than a bad deal, remember?

  5. John DrewryReply

    That’s exactly right, Steven, and exactly planned that way by the likes of Justine Greening. She knows, as do they all, that three-way votes produce mathematical certainties if you control the questions. It’s a cynical, divide-and-conquer calculation. Contrary to Brian Mooney’s assertion, it isn’t a “complicated referendum” at all. Whenever you’ve got a relatively narrow margin (e.g. 52 : 48) between two factions, you retain the choice of the faction you favour (in this case the Remainers), and give the other faction (in this case the Leavers) a ‘generous’ two new choices, having eliminated their original choice. It’s clever, because “leave with no deal” sounds the same as “leave the EU” two years ago, but she knows it’s different and divisive. Greening’s ‘solution’ guarantees remaining in the EU, because almost any splitting of the Leavers into two camps automatically creates a minority position for them.

    • StevenReply

      Yes, John Drewry, that is correct. Also, your points become even more relevant when you consider the effects of the press and media constantly making ever more lurid predictions of what they believe wiil be the consequences of a ‘no deal’ scenario with others who could counter many of the stories not being given publicity or not being allowed to respond in a proportionate way. If you can scare the electorate sufficiently then relatively few will have the mental fortitude to be able to withstand the barrage and vote for no deal.

    • Adam HileyReply

      say what You like about May She did have sane judgement by getting rid of failures like Greening Soubry Nikki Morgan and Osborne if only She removes Phillip Eyore Hammond or Mark Carney eutruth.org.uk

  6. PipReply

    A second referendum NO WAY
    That would make a mockery of the democratic process
    The next project fear campaign is under way in all the Global Corporate owned and sold out press and media and that includes the BBC and like the first, the UK voters will not be conned and it will fail.

    You can guarantee that what the EU favours most is worst for the UK and what the EU wants least is best for us

    So for me its better to have no deal than a bad deal. I’m sure I’ve heard a leading politician say that before -May be not!
    For me a clean Exit and the EU protectionist racket will take its chances and crumble
    The EU is not Europe

  7. Robin LambertReply

    Reply to Greenings ”Fixed Vote”

    2 Questions in 3rd Referendum since 1975 (Heath illegally taking UK in January 1973)

    1. UK To leave EU & its Institutions Immediately

    2.UK To leave Now WTO rules immediately No £40billion ‘Divorce bill’.

  8. ThomasReply

    Despite that recent poll, I think most people do not desire another referendum. Indeed, many cannot believe that we are not out of the EU already. We desperately need to move on from the divisions of the last referendum and leave behind the labels of “Brexiteers” and “Remainers.” Greening’s model would divide the country yet further by introducing a third group into the fray; it would also be deeply undemocratic to seek to reverse the referendum two years on when it took Brexiteers forty-three years took reverse the 1973 referendum. It would show where the Establishment’s heart lies and would continue the pattern of European rejection of democracy that we have seen in France and Ireland. The Europhile elite have openly declared Brexit voters to be ignorant and stupid and they continue this line of thought by thinking no one would notice their blatant attempt to split the Leave camp. The result would probably be along the lines of 40% for No-Deal, 15% for the Chequers hash, and 45% for Remain. It would be a bitter betrayal of the people.

  9. Phil JonesReply

    Greening is an Arch-Remainer and her proposal reflects that fact. A total non-starter from the moment she proposed it. There won’t be another referendum on leaving nor on a deal for leaving. May & Co should just get on with following our Referendum instruction.

  10. Jonathon HarringtonReply

    I simply do not understand how a simply ‘In or Out’ referendum as proposed and adopted run by David Cameron et al can be misconstrued as being anything else. It was exactly what it said on the ballot paper. Anything else is a ‘cop out’.

Leave a comment