I'm not sure that Johnson would win another referendum. It would also be a bit mulligan-y, since the people have in fact voted already, FWIW.

Cheers,
John

Oh - the joke goes like this. An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a pub. Then the Englishman wants to go, so they all have to leave.

I didn't suggest that Johnson would want to call the referendum. I meant Parliament. Can't Parliament do it?

Yes, it's mulligany, but so is the process being pursued at the moment. It seems to me that a referendum that is over three years old, older than the last two (?) general elections themselves, and conducted before numerous aspects of the question and the difficulties of implementation became well known, ought not to be binding on the country. If the current electorate (which includes many who were not of age to vote years ago) feels differently, it seems a bit strange to hold them to the wishes of the electorate of three years ago. After all, we're talking about doing it now, not three years ago, so it makes sense to consult the people of now, not the people of then. If the process dragged out another ten years, would the country still feel beholden to the electorate of 2016 in 2029? When would the referendum expire if Brexit keeps on not happening?

Well, Donald Trump usefully pointed out that another referendum "would be unfair to the winners." So there's that.

Cheers,
John

I think fairness has gone out the window by the time we all start to learn what proroguing is. Time to go rogue when you prorogue, I think.

But if Parliament can repeal existing laws, as of course it can and does from time to time, and it's not considered unfair to those who passed the prior law, I don't see why it's unfair for the people acting in a referendum to reverse an earlier referendum. I just don't see the difference.

Sadly, many democracies seem to be playing constitutional hardball these days. The object of the game is to keep your own team in power by any means necessary, usually by exploiting loopholes and technicalities and as many dirty tricks as a court of law will let you get away with, and some that they won't.

The authors of the Wikipedia article seem to have forgotten two Census-related instances of constitutional hardball. The first is the use of gerrymandering when drawing new districts based on Census data, in order to consolidate or split geographical groups favorable to a particular political party. The second is Trump's recent attempt to add a question to the 2020 Census that would decrease Census participation (and therefore the Census-determined share of political power) in communities with large numbers of undocumented immigrants--i.e., in districts that tend to oppose Trump's xenophobic policies.

Back to Brexit. Suddenly dredging up and employing some arcane rule like proroguing, which everyone's forgotten about because it's so outrageously out of the norm that the last guy who tried it was beheaded, certainly seems to fit right in there, doesn't it?

Constitutional hardball destroys justice and freedom in the homeland you claim to love, but who cares? What's important is that your side managed to seize (or remain in) power, and to defeat those evil bastards on the other side. It's okay to fight evil with evil, if you can persuade your followers that there's no other way to win. Go, team!

The alternative to winner-take-all government depends on compromise. And the more polarized and extremist a society becomes, the less acceptable compromise becomes.

Here's one option, a partial alternative, apparently being considered. It was leaked I think, and Johnson has said he's "open to it".

https://www.irishnews.com/news/brexi...rexit-1702628/

x
This...

Julie: "Constitutional hardball destroys justice and freedom in the homeland you claim to love, but who cares? What's important is that your side managed to seize (or remain in) power, and to defeat those evil bastards on the other side. It's okay to fight evil with evil, if you can persuade your followers that there's no other way to win. Go, team!

The alternative to winner-take-all government depends on compromise. And the more polarized and extremist a society becomes, the less acceptable compromise becomes.

... is the whole ball of wax.
x
x

Thank you, Matt. That's interesting. I don't understand why it is only a food zone that is considered. Other goods seem equally at issue.

It's good to know that there is another option on the table (at least for food) and that Johnson, at least theoretically, is prepared to make a significant concession.

Well, the Irish died in their millions due to British rigidity about markets in the C19th (the potato famine), so I imagine food has special significance in these negotiations.

Cheers,
John

Roger, you made some excellent points in #10, #12 and #14 about the addled referendum imposed on us in 2016 by the Conservative chancer Cameron, now skulking in his shed.

How the narrow result of this incompetently-framed exercise has become the unchallengeable 'will of the people' for a catastrophic No Deal Brexit engineered by the Arch-Chancer and his Dr Strangelove of a Special Adviser and String-Puller at the head of the fanatical sect the Tories have become is beyond me.