Why does Boris want a General Election when surely a second referendum might address the deadlock more definitively.

[Whatjusthappenedthere]

This. Because I can’t see anywhere this question has been asked or answered and I’m truly baffled.

I can't see how an international peace treaty will be broken. The judge that dismissed the case in Northern Ireland specifically stated :
“Neither NIA 1998 nor the international treaty scheduled to the Belfast Agreement (or, for that matter, the Agreement itself) has the effect in law of requiring the continued membership of the EU on the part of the UK.

The Supreme Court was alert to this in Miller: see [129]. Furthermore, none of the sources mentioned subjects the EU 27 to conclude an Article 50 Withdrawal Agreement in any particular terms.”

“Once again, neither the Belfast Agreement nor this suite of provisions was predicated on the basis that UK membership of the EU would continue forever. Neither of them can be construed as requiring a customs Union or continued regulatory alignment. More fundamentally, there is no sufficient evidential foundation for the incompatibility asserted. There is no suggestion that the incompatibility has already materialised”

yet their vote is worth exactly the same as yours is

yes but you don't put options on a ballot paper that you can't fulfil (because of the GFA) and won't fulfil (because it wrecks the economy and possibly breaks up the UK). You can't put something on a ballot paper that you are not happy to implement.

Therefore you have deal or no Brexit on the ballot paper. Deal would win easily.

neither the Belfast Agreement nor this suite of provisions was predicated on the basis that UK membership of the EU would continue forever

Not sure this is correct because I am not entirely sure that there was a mechanism for a country to leave the EU in 1998. That came later as part of the Lisbon Treaty.

The logic of including 'No deal' in any further referendum question because 'everyone is entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be judged etc' is flawed. Yellowhammer points out the likely damage of no deal, as do various experts, including doctors, economists, lawyers, businessmen, academics, etc. If anyone has been championing no deal and backing this up with a comprehensive list of benefits, I must have missed it. It's all very well having known liars like Farage, Raab and JRM banging on about no deal being fine, but (a) this is a complete turnaround on their earlier stance (we were going to have deals galore!) and (b) they have articulated no benefits. I can think of no example of a country offering its citizens a choice to vote for something so damaging. It would be an outrage.

You can't put something on a ballot paper that you are not happy to implement.

Isn’t that the problem though - you might not be happy to implement it but some people are.

As I said upthread, the best option would be a completely impartial campaign stating exactly what each option entails.

That way there could be no question of people saying that others didn’t know what they were voting for

No deal would be very unlikely to win but at least that way no one could say that their choice wasn’t offered.

I happen to agree with you on the internal peace treaty point but plenty don’t

Anyone who is familiar with the GFA and its implementation would know that no deal would break it. To paraphrase Coveney: everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.

The leave vote was overall a working class revolution. People who live above Watford objected to London and the South East going forwards while rest of UK went backwards Yeah, there’s no one working class or poor in London or the south-east.

Berlin - I wouldn't presume to know about 1998. However the judge in deciding to dismiss the case , does state that The Belfast Agreement is not dependent on the UK remaining a member of the EU. That particular paragraph is on pages 54 and 55 of the judgement : judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McCord%20%28Raymond%29%2C%20JR83%20and%20Jamie%20Waring%27s%20Applications%20v%20the%20Prime%20Minister%20and%20others.pdf

@BelleHathor - you are correct that there is nothing to require the UK to remain in the EU. You are also correct that there is nothing that requires the UK to remain in the CU or maintain regulatory alignment.

However, the GFA does require cross-border bodies and all-island cooperation. This requires a de-facto open border. How that is implemented is what needs to be resolved. A no deal will result in a hard border, which will break the GFA. A deal that satisfies the UK red lines will, given current technological standards, require a hard border, hence the suggestion of a backstop to prevent that if measures to avoid a hard border cannot be introduced.

The court is not saying that no deal doesn't break the GFA. They are saying the UK is not required to remain in the EU (they're not) and they are saying that the UK is not required to maintain the GFA in a prescribed way (they're not).

None of that negates the fact that a no deal, with today's technological capabilities, WTO and EU border requirements, will break the GFA.

Remainers are so funny with their angst at how the referendum was a disaster. If it was such a disaster why do they want to have another one?

Either it was terrible and we should never have another, or is was a great form of democracy and we should have regular referendum on issues.

Either it was terrible and we should never have another, or is was a great form of democracy and we should have regular referendum on issues.

Or, the UK could spend a bit of time trying to figure out how to run referendums properly.

Leavers are so funny the way they don't trust the great British public to vote "correctly" in a second referendum.

Nothing wrong with a confirmatory vote now the more detailed proposals are available. There's more information now, and people deserve that information when hitting "Confirm".

Of course, in reality a second referendum would mean we'd be swamped in Cambridge Analyticoid emotional lies again, like pretending Turkey was joining the EU.

Actually it's really NOT funny that Brexiteers (as opposed to people who voted Leave) didn't trust the great British public to vote "correctly" in the first referendum either.

Which is why Brexiteers paid tens of thousands of pounds to psycho-warfare companies to lie to us, about everything from Turkey joining the EU to funding for the NHS.

It's why they misdirected all classes, including the working class (that Brexiteers imagine is theirs to toy with), that leaving the EU would be the answer to our problems.

"Look over there! Have your revolution against THEM; don't look at us with our hedge funds and currency trading and pals in government who slash employment protections and cut funding to schools and the NHS and women's shelters. Ooh noo, nothing which might actually cut into OUR profitability or power, or might genuinely reverse the damage done to you by austerity."

The fact the EU are not signatories is irrelevant

Since when have people been bound by agreements they never signed?

I never signed my neighbours mortgage agreement, but on your logic I have to pay the lender.

As I said upthread, the best option would be a completely impartial campaign stating exactly what each option entails

How do you propose to implement that?

It is not possible to control what is posted or shared on FB etc and any control would be perceived as propaganda by either or both sides.

Certain things are too important and complex to allow the public a direct say, something that idiot Cameron should have considered.

Because the UK's FPTP is absolutely crooked. The Referendum showed a slight majority for Leave, with a very slight loss for Remain. If it had been a normal vote by constituency under FPTP rules though, it would have been an absolute landslide for Leave. fullfact.org/online/referendum-results-by-constituency/

All of people's complaints and instincts about how little their votes count in an FPTP system are absolutely correct.

That's why Johnson is fairly sure he can win a General Referendum, especially with the way politics and media works now and the hatchet job they've done on. The potential results of another Referendum even with all of that apparatus are much less clear. I think Remain would just about win, but it's no guarantee, and even if they do it won't be by more than that slight majority again.

peoples' complaints, not the other one, and the hatchet job they've done on Corbyn. Sigh.

@MysteryTripAgain - Since when have people been bound by agreements they never signed?
I never signed my neighbours mortgage agreement, but on your logic I have to pay the lender.

I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse but I guess that's part of the 50 cent army strategy. Please point out where I said the EU is bound by the GFA.

The EU are not bound by the GFA. However, the UK and Ireland are. As Ireland is part of the EU, the EU will not sign an agreement that will cause a member state to break an international peace treaty they have signed.

The EU are not bound by the GFA

Correct.

Also for information Article 50 was signed by all EU members. So when UK and Ireland signed up in 2009 they acknowledged the possibility of a no deal departure by either Ireland or the United Kingdom.

Ideal situation is a deal. However, if the WA can't be revisited and was rejected by parliament (mostly by the labour party).

DUP guy on Question Time on 12 September 2019 stated that NI only backstop or NI special economic zone breaks the GFA too as it separates NI from the UK.

Yet the UK and Ireland joined the EU together, same date, same time, precisely to avoid all these problems with the unique issue that is the NI.

The DUP are Unionists, of course they don't want the NI separated from the UK in any way, shape or form. This is an absolute disaster. Is anyone else 'enjoying' reading Cameron's drip-fed self-justificatory self-pity?

@DarkAtEndOfUk

Ireland 🇮🇪 and UK joined EU in 1973, 25 years before the GFA was concluded. BIC (British Irish Council) was formed after GFA to look after the interests of the GFA.

11 years later in 2009 all EU members signed Article 50 which described the withdrawal procedure if any member wishes to leave the EU. Procedure anticipates that a member may leave the EU without a deal.

BIC overlooked this possibility completely and no protocol was developed to describe how the border between Ireland and UK would be managed if either Ireland or the UK left EU without a deal. Even when Cameron announced in January 2013 there would be a referendum if he was elected in 2015, no action taken by BIC. Check their website and go through all the annual reports, meeting notes, etc., there was nothing done.

All comes down to the same thing every time.

Everyone assumed that no member would ever vote for leave.

@MysteryTripAgain - IC overlooked this possibility completely and no protocol was developed to describe how the border between Ireland and UK would be managed if either Ireland or the UK left EU without a deal. Even when Cameron announced in January 2013 there would be a referendum if he was elected in 2015, no action taken by BIC. Check their website and go through all the annual reports, meeting notes, etc., there was nothing done.

You're not really starting with this nonsense again are you? A50 does allows a member to leave without a deal certainly. However, it is up to each country that wants to leave to do so in a manner that is compliant with their other obligations. The UK can currently leave while still being compliant with the GFA. That would require a deal.

There is talk of technological solutions to the border issue. These do not currently exist, but if and when they are developed, then leaving without a deal and using these potential solutions might allow the UK or Ireland to leave without a deal.

The BIC took action as soon as it became apparent the UK was introducing red lines that threatened the GFA. Prior to that, all mention of brexit involved staying the the SM and CU.

@MysteryTripAgain - Also for information Article 50 was signed by all EU members. So when UK and Ireland signed up in 2009 they acknowledged the possibility of a no deal departure by either Ireland or the United Kingdom.

Yes they did. But again it comes back to integrity. If, with current technological standards, it is not possible to leave with no deal, whilst still complying with your obligations under an international peace treaty you have signed, then leave in a way that complies with the GFA. Once technology advances to allow the border issue to be dealt with, then go to no ties of that is what you want.

DUP guy on Question Time on 12 September 2019 stated that NI only backstop or NI special economic zone breaks the GFA too as it separates NI from the UK.

No, it doesn't break the GFA. If it did, then the separate laws in NI on social issues that are so beloved of the DUP would also break the GFA. The DUP are quite happy to break the GFA. They have always been opposed to it.

How do you propose to implement that?

I don’t. I know it’s not possible. Which is a shame because it’s sensible and might actually work.

The DUP are quite happy to break the GFA. They have always been opposed to it

Is that why DUP always voted against the WA to force a no deal? Now that labour are not pushing for a general election wonder if they will vote for the WA if it was presented again. They were almost unanimously against the WA in the previous three votes.