Final Say Referendum appears to be gaining support

More, per capita, than from the Brits. And that article's from 10 years ago, before the recent Clarkson expense scandal.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Sounds reasonable Michael Moriarity. Up until I pull a coin out of my pocket and I see the queens face on it.  The queen of England is the official head of state for Canada. So therefore, the royal family is also a parasite onto Canadians. 

I agree with your point, and if we ever have a chance to vote on monarchy vs. republic, I will be loudly on the republican side. On the other hand, I consider the environment, income and wealth inequality, proportional representation and many other issues to be much more urgent than getting rid of the monarchy.

Wealth inequality? Now don’t get me wrong, agreed on all counts, but I believe proper representation and equality would or at the very least should include in Canada becoming a people’s republic. 

I think it all boils down to money (and really, what doesn’t?)

To get rid of the monarchy would cost Canada probably billions and several years in legal work. I’m guessing it’s cheaper to just give them 10M a year in the short term 

Same with everything else you mentioned. And probably with the EU

Theresa May's Conservative Government Survives No-Confidence Vote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/17/noco-j17.html

"...The Blairites were only ever supportive of a no-confidence vote in May so that its defeat would clear the decks for pressing Corbyn to openly support their demand for a second 'People's Vote.' What should have been a day of reckoning for May therefore turned out to be a humiliating verdict on every capitulation made by Corby to his party's right wing since he became leader in September 2015..."

No surprise given the nature of NDP politics that we should see significant sympathy for the Blairite tendency here. 

On a lighter note.

Brexit: Opportunity for Irish Reunification?

https://youtu.be/P28lHDxdYdc

RT's Manila Chan speaks with former UK MP George Galloway on what's next..

NDPP wrote:

Theresa May's Conservative Government Survives No-Confidence Vote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/17/noco-j17.html

"...The Blairites were only ever supportive of a no-confidence vote in May so that its defeat would clear the decks for pressing Corbyn to openly support their demand for a second 'People's Vote.' What should have been a day of reckoning for May therefore turned out to be a humiliating verdict on every capitulation made by Corby to his party's right wing since he became leader in September 2015..."

No surprise given the nature of NDP politics that we should see significant sympathy for the Blairite tendency here. 

So if I understand WSWS's and your position, real socialists should be supporting Theresa May's continuing in office. If a Tory government got replaced by a Labour one, Corbyn would be so in thrall to the Labour right wing that the Blairites might trick the British people into changing their mind about Brexit. But as long as a Tory government remains in office, nothing so sneakily right-wing will happen. For true left-wing policies, we must look to the right.

NDPP wrote:

Brexit Future:

https://twitter.com/BrexitFutureUK/status/1086220071712800768

"The social Europe agenda was always a smoke screen to fool the organized working class that we had something in common with big business. We didn't then and we don't today when unelected EU institutions, directly representing Europe's biggest banks, are removing elected governments and imposing mass unemployment, social dumping and unending austerity everywhere."

Yep.  Similar to what I said above.

..interesting piece.

Ten reasons I came round to a People's Vote

“If Scotland had voted Yes in the independence referendum, and you’d told me we’d have to vote again, I’d have told you to fuck right off.”

That was my reaction when, the Monday after the European referendum, the idea of a People’s Vote was first put to me. I was in Parliament, chatting to Caroline Lucas and her staffer, my friend Matthew Butcher. While the country had been in shock they’d been strategising.

In two years’ time, they explained, the Tories would come back with a deal. It would be a deal which would prioritise the needs of bosses over workers, which would do nothing to address the concerns of many of those who had voted Leave, and which wouldn’t get the support of a majority of MPs. It would deliver a parliamentary stalemate.

At that point, they argued, the conundrum should be resolved in public. It should be up to the people who voted for Brexit to decide whether to accept the deal, not a backroom stitch-up.

The case had its internal logic. But for a long time, I stuck to my initial reaction. No matter how much I disliked Brexit, making people vote again before doing what they decided seemed a democratic travesty. People had voted Leave, and Leave we must. The democratic way to change our mind, if we do, would be to then rejoin, if they'd then have us. Had Scotland voted Yes to independence in 2014, and ended up staying in the UK, the democratic damage would have been deep and long-lasting.

quote:

It may have been bad then but today the British political system is utterly broken. Mending it now requires a bottom-up convention, as I argue in my pamphlet “Trying to milk a vulture: if we want economic justice we need democratic revolution”.

Right after the Brexit vote, we should have held such a convention. In parallel to the negotiations with the EU, we should have had a process in which a jury of citizens drafted a new constitution, and put it or each element of it to public vote. Such a constitution would, I hope, shift the UK from the broken and elitist notion that the “crown in Parliament” is sovereign to grounding our democracy on the people's sovereignty. And the first stage of the creation of that constitution would be putting it, or key elements of it, to the people of the country.

If we had such a process, and if direct democracy was to become a more normal tool in the UK – as it is, for example, in Ireland – then allowing the public a say on something as big as the final deal with the EU would seem much more normal. The reason that Westminster is aflame right now is that there is no real agreement about where power ultimately lies – as Anthony Barnett and I explained back in 2017, the Gina Miller case was a contest between four sources of sovereignty: government, Parliament, people and courts.

CrossTalk: What Kind of Brexit?

https://youtu.be/osbR6BZjYjo

"With Brexit looming it is clear what members of parliament are against. What is not clear is what they support. Time is running out. Is a compromise still possible?"

People’s vote?  Didn’t people vote in 2016?

josh wrote:

People’s vote?  Didn’t people vote in 2016?

Actually they have voted many times in many places. So?

Brexit is a different question today than it was then -- when won by a hair. The demographics suggest that the vote would be different today even if nobody changed their vote. However, it seems that many have. No suprise either given that there is so much more information available and that a number of distortions have been exposed.

The vote was nonbinding and nobody said that it was a one time deal and people would never get to vote on the issue again even if they learned a lot more and there was significant demand for it.

Why shouldn't they get a do-over given these circumstances.

It does not matter which side you are on but it is extremely cynical to pretend to like democracy and respecting the principle of voting and then seek to deny a second vote in this case.

I much like the principle the PQ often used which was to vote for a mandate to negotiate followed by a vote on the result. This was more popular than when they suggested just one vote.

Quote:

Shouldn’t people be allowed to change direction when they feel they have made a mistake?

Or when they feel everyone else has.

JKR wrote:

Shouldn’t people be allowed to change direction when they feel they have made a mistake? 

I was commenting more on the presumptuousness of calling it a “people’s vote.”  But if there’s to be a revote, I assume those now calling for a revote will have no objection to a revote on the revote should remain win.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Brexit is a different question today than it was then

Evidently, it was a "different question" 48 hours later.

Of course some people want a do-over.  They wanted it immediately, and not because they felt they voted the wrong way, or because things had somehow changed in two days, or because the government hadn't started funding the NHS.

And they still want that do-over, except now it's ginned up with talk of demographics and political sea changes and the impossibly perfect Brexit that pleases everyone and was apparently was the one people were "really" voting for.

Come on. You know that is not true.

Polls showed that it was quite some time before a majority wanted a do over. The support for it is much much higher than what you are pretending -- that it was the same people unhappy  with the result on that day.

But nice try.

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Does "the fantasy you voted for that has no way of being implemented in the way you thought it would" quality as new information?

Brexit 'Plan B' Won't Fly - Galloway

https://youtu.be/aTIy_vtokIw

"Former MP George Galloway on why PM Theresa May's proposed Brexit Plan B won't fare any better than the original rejected deal."

Morning Star: Will Parliament Turn on the People?

https://t.co/FLXepjjBSZ

"We fought long and hard for a democracy we could fully participate in - only to have the Tories devolve the nation's economic sovereignty to the EU. Brexit puts us back on track, but that too is facing a subversion of democracy. The Parliament our predecessors in the movement fought and died to democratise is in danger of rejecting our strongest ever demand on it. For those of us in the trade union movement who are internationalists and democrats these are disturbing times..."

Pogo wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Does "the fantasy you voted for that has no way of being implemented in the way you thought it would" quality as new information?

 

I think that there has been a significant swing in public opinion and the original poll is outdated.  Of course there are now multiple options.  Hard Brexit, Brexit Lite, and Remain.  I don't think any of those options now hold a majority of support, so any binary referendum will be tainted and any multi choice referendum has the likelihood of just muddying the waters.  Far better is to have an election, discuss the issue in depth and let the new Parliament sort through the mess.

Maybe but parliament is distorted by bogus claims of holding up this result as if it were carved on tablets from a sky fairy.

If parliament can recognize that it was not binding, tainted, based on assumptions that have not borne out to be true and open itself to a real discussion about options then parliament ought to be able to deal with it. So long as parliament is kicking the can down the road pretending that there is some unavoidable obligation to respect this vote no matter the result, a revote is the only option.

Certainly a representative parliament aware of its mandate and responsibility is a way forward.

Absent an imperative from the vote, a parliament could actually determine, and take responsibility for, a solution that could involve either a brexit or remaining in the EU based on current knowledge of the facts and options.

Parliament is completely hopeless until it accepts that it has a responsible mandate. This whole thing started becuase parliament did not want the responsibility of a decisions - shifted it to the people and got an unclear result due to a badly managed referendum and frequently misinformed and misled population.

Parliament really has an obligation -- given the spit vote especially -- to put to the people well reasoned and factual reasons to leave and to remain and then make a decision. If they do not want to do this, instead of demanding some kind of BS respect for the people, they should ask the people to vote again, given all that has transpired.

Setting aside all the bullshiut about having no option but to follow the vote: parliament ought to debate the merits on both sides and take responsibility. There is a lot more information, no shortage of advocates on both sides and a meaningful discussion would be possible if parliament wanted one. As well, if such a discussion resulted in an informed decision to leave by parliament following a public debate, Britain might well get a better deal than what is currently on offer. Frankly Europe probably is punishing Britain for leaving by making it difficult but is also responding to a parliament that is too gutless to accept responsibility and be clean to the people about what that parlaiment wants and why. Now the parliament, still unable to take any responsibility is hiding from a new vote behind the shambles it created of the last one.

The only reasons why the world is not laughing at Britain is becuase many fear the chaos that they are running into (of those not already too busy laughing at Trump.

Britain has successfully botched arguments on both sides of this farce.

It’s time to smash the Tories, stay in the EU and deliver the Corbyn project

THE myth on the left that European Union (EU) state aid rules will prevent Jeremy Corbyn’s nationalisation programme is still too pervasive.

Yet, when Chris Grayling — Secretary of State for Transport Incompetence — renationalised services on the East Coast Main Line last year, the EU did not raise an eyebrow, never mind a finger to stop it. Twelve months on there’s still no EU sanction over this.

In June last year, in these pages, I was the first to say that a general election was a solution to Britain’s Brexit problems. Our country’s biggest division remains the gap between the gilded Gatsbyesque 1 per cent and the rest of us.

With the possibility of a general election inching ever closer, it’s time for the Corbyn-supporting left to rally behind him. Remainers and Leavers alike must build the electoral momentum needed to defeat the nasty Tories. Winning power is now the prize.

The publication of a myth-busting briefing by the respected Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on state aid rules provides a platform on which we on the left can come back together. It clearly shows we can have Labour’s radical policies for the many while staying within the EU — a win/win scenario which will unite our voters and our country.

While Westminster buzzes with every twist and turn of the Tory Brexit disasterclass, our people continue to suffer....