Referendum Brexit referendum

Yes I know what everyone is thinking.

The referendum question – didn’t we kill this one last week and the week before that and the week before that.

A bit like a Zombie in the Walking Dead it never quite dies.

Why it doesn’t ever die is really the fascinating question, its not like it has not been rejected enough over the last three years. I mean parliament has in the last two weeks alone voted on it four times and defeated the idea by a massive margin each time.

What is it that keeps it going beyond Amber sorry I mean Roland Rudd?

Being honest after much analysis and watching with growing cynicism our political overlords I have decided that they don’t want to kill it because in their heart of hearts the lion’s share of them desperately want to overturn Brexit but really don’t have the guts to do it via a revocation.

I mean if they really thought that Brexit was going to be such a disaster with the economy imploding with millions on the dole queue, banks turning into burning craters and the British isles gently sinking into the ocean you would hope they would all vote to revoke Article 50 and explain to the people why they did it before resigning on mass in an example of perfect public service.

You would think so.

I think I would be willing to take one of the team in that scenario.

So, the fact that they haven’t done that means that they either don’t think that Brexit is going to be that bad or they are all such gutless spineless careerists that the idea of resigning is quite beyond them.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of our political class really either way.

But then let’s face it most of the main movers and shakers on the referendum circuit are hardly examples of high principles. One only has to slide over to Change Britain the pro Brexit pressure group where you can watch people like Philip Lee, Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka Umunna and all the rest clearly stating the referendum had to be respected before rushing out immediately after to try and crowbar one into the political process because ‘facts’ had changed.

I mean what those facts are no one is quite sure.

It’s sure as shit not their favourite yarn of EU reform which like a taxi on Saturday night is always coming around the corner but never arrives. I like to think I follow the EU and European politics closely and for 8 years I have waited with abated breath for reform.

Nothing has arrived – very much like our metaphorical taxi.

I mean on the Euro alone the total reform has amounted to renaming some bailout funds which are hopelessly undercapitalised and reliant on the credit rating of the countries they may have to bail out and launching a banking union but without the important bit - the deposit insurance scheme.

In terms of reform it’s a bit like repainting the inside of your house after you have had the roof blown off whilst watching a hurricane form on the horizon. Now if the EU can’t bring itself to reform the Euro which has impoverished tens of millions what hope does anything else have.  

So, the fact bit doesn’t exist but hey ho who cares keep going!

I mean the bit I really enjoy is watching people like Carolyn Lucas.

Now I like Carolyn but find her virtue signalling annoying. She is the kind of kill joy whom would spend their weekends stopping kids from picking daffodils for their Mum. I mean it’s a critically important public service and seems about on the level for much of our political class right now. Maybe they could form a daffodil superhero squad with uniforms and rush around the country in a Robin Reliant shaped like a flower.

I would dig that. 

But anyway, Carolyn recently has spent some time travelling the country speaking to people who voted leave. All power to her she has at least made an effort to reach out and speak to those people who have been largely ignored by our very upset political class.

Where it fell down was her conclusions which can be roughly paraphrased as “I know that people feel left out politically and economically, and we must do more to make sure their voices are heard. But only after they shut up and we reverse Brexit”.

Oh Carolyn – you were nearly there now back to your daffodil patrol.

Moving back to the referendum question I could even get behind it if people could answer some basic questions honestly with reasoned answers. I have asked these same questions to countless people and I never can get answers which stand up to even basic scrutiny.

Here we go.

What question to you want to ask?

Whatever it is would need to clear enough to be able to provide more insight that the really rather simple and quite clear in or out referendum we have already had. Now wait for it we could pitch May’s deal against remain, but May’s deal isn’t a future deal it’s for the most part a winding up treaty with a rather slim political declaration stapled on the front that has little legal basis and needs to be negotiated. 

I know those pesky facts.

That is how Article 50 works – you leave and then you do a deal on the future.

So it is not possible to pitch remain versus what a future deal will look like as it hasn't been negotiated yet and so that brings us back to a rather binary in / out or remain / leave question and we had that nearly three years ago. Anything else is just a bit of a waste of time and really doesn’t help answer much.

I know those facts are annoying but sadly it’s the truth.

Why would anyone trust this parliament?

Now this is a big issue but why would anyone believe that this parliament or government would deliver on a 2^nd referendum when they have failed on the first. I know this comes as a shock to many but trust right now in our political class and institutions is in short supply.

What is that “this time we could pass a law to put the referendum on a legal footing as the first was only advisory”. Genius but you appear to have missed out on UK constitution 101 whereby no parliament can bind a future one and therefore strictly all referendum are advisory. Which basically means anyone could just come along and repeal the bill that delivered the referendum and its result. 

This process should be familiar to everyone as it is basically what has happened with the Brexit departure date over the last few weeks.

So that is not going work either – bugger.

Why not a ask for a third, fourth or just neverendum?

I’m sure a few people here have started turning slightly green and are gently inching away from the conversation. It is though probably one of the most relevant questions as sets out the difference between elections and referendums in the UK constitution.

Elections are part of the normal cycle of national life and are used to elect representatives at various levels of government. They are designed to happen on a regular cadence to minimise corruption whilst maximising democratic accountability.

The other has been used historically to answer big once in a generation questions to do with our constitutional settlement. They are not designed to be like an election and run on a regular cadence like an opinion poll on a certain issue which is exactly what a 2^nd referendum would thrust on us.

But beyond that why would the losing side decide to strike camp and head off into the political wilderness after it had been demonstrated that having another referendum that was quite possible?

Ha you see I have blinded you with my logic.

Scotland and Northern Ireland plus the future

Now the real problem with having a second referendum is it would open an hornets nest of constitutional shenanigans across these fair isles.

You see by accepting the idea that referendums are allowed as many times as you like and are not a once in generation affair it might let rip a storm of requests for reruns of ones that have already been held.

I mean the first that comes to mind is Scotland where the SNP has been itching (They haven’t really actually) to hold a 2^nd referendum and would certainly pocket any rerun of the EU one as carte blanche to call a new independence vote when convenient to them.

Being honest it would be a bit hard for Westminster to say no.

What about Northern Ireland can you imagine a Unionist majority suddenly deciding that they really didn’t like the potential outcome of the Good Friday Agreement and would like to hold a referendum to reverse it. Could it happen – who knows but as we are all somewhat concerned about NI perhaps you want to think about  longer-term consequences.

This is especially true in a country with a constitution based in precedent. Once it has happened before it is accepted as being possible in the future.

Brainstorming by the daffodil patrol

If we are being honest the 2^nd referendum is a horrible idea. It’s not really about answering a question or filling in the blanks it’s about trying to reverse a decision because a load of middle and upper-class people don’t like the result from the last one.

You can be honest on that one.

They even came up with a groovy marketing brand – ‘a peoples vote’ which our complicit media jumped on being ever ready to do the establishments work for them. Fortunately for me it also provided the perfect counter brand – ‘a loser vote’ which I think is much more apt.

What you have seen in parliament recently has been an effort to move the needle and try and dodge some of the above questions by re-branding the losers vote as a confirmatory vote.

That is right guys we have gone from a 2^nd referendum to losers vote to confirmatory referendum. You can see how our political class bestride the world with their intellect and political skills. Their inspiring efforts to try and hide the blindingly obvious had me fooled. But then I am not as clever as they are – no sir!

  

The idea is perhaps to present remain as one option with this crap deal that Corbyn and May are cooking up together which sounds like a custom union and automatic regulatory alignment with the single market but without those bloody migrants as the other option. 

What a relief that they have both grasped what Brexit is about!

Genius I am bowled over with the brainstorming that daffodil patrol has put into this. Literally I can smell the burning from parliament as their five brain cells have been working in overdrive.

I laugh because it still doesn’t answer any of the above questions but also falls at the first hurdle of democratic legitimacy. Why would anyone bother to vote for remain versus... well remain.  It would be like an election in North Korea or buying a car from Henry Ford “You can’t have any colour you like as long it is black”.  

You see I have outsmarted our political overlords demonstrating that either I am an intellectual giant or it’s still a crap idea. Being modest I will assume it’s the prior and I am just a lot smarter than them – low bar to be honest.

Frankly our political class are so out of touch and sinking fast both in trust and voter belief in their clearly mediocre skills that perhaps we should let them off and ask to stay in. It could be like care in the community for the mentally disadvantaged. We could then just turn parliament into a soft play zone so they don’t hurt themselves.