Miliboy D and logic

The real Brexit choice lies ahead this autumn: a bad deal or a people’s vote, writes David Miliband

Why would a peoples’ vote necessarily stop a bad deal? After all, Miliboy D is pretty inside with he idea that the last peoples’ vote endorsed a bad deal in very Brexit itself…..

25 thoughts on “Miliboy D and logic”

  1. It is going to be a “people’s” vote – unpersons will be excluded and/or the party will determine the result in advance.
    The data on Russian election results shows a lot of amazing coincidences where each of a large number of polling stations produced exactly the same %age vote for Putin.

  2. Interesting how they rarely outline what the alternative option in such a vote would be – having read it through, Miliband doesn’t do it here either. Deliberately failing to specify if the alternative to agreeing with the deal is to leave or renegotiate or cancel article 50 is a good way to be all things to all people.

    Practically, I can’t see either that there is the time to sort things out, or if British voters did vote down a deal, that what follows would be as orderly and well-negotiated by all sides as Miliband implies. Interesting that he has such total faith that, in the event of such a thing occurring, neither the EU nor UK government would walk over the precipice so they’ll be sensible and sort something out (he doesn’t say what, except that he assumes the negotiating period would be graciously extended) and yet he doesn’t trust them to competently negotiate a sensible deal now. As Tim says, the logic is not there at all. It’s just wishful thinking – “I don’t like what’s been going on or how people have gone about it, if only there were a new vote, and then people would all change and start acting as I desire them to”.

    Worth pointing out Miliband didn’t get what he wanted when Labour had a second bash at a leadership election either.

  3. Bloke in North Dorset

    MBE,

    The had one of the leaders of the PV on the Speccie podcast and I’ve heard and read a few of them, although haven’t had time to read Miliband.

    For them its axiomatic that The People will vote against whatever deal is agreed and no deal and therefore we’ll have to Remain. When pushed they talk airily about polls, as if they’ve never been wrong.

  4. Obviously we shouldn’t permit them to make a mockery of what little democracy we still have in this country by re-running the referendum in the hopes of getting the “right” answer.

    But if they did, I believe Leave would win by a larger margin. The Westminster-media complex are badly out of step with the public. I don’t think they realise how badly Project Fear 2.0 is failing – it’s all over the press but I see little anecdotal evidence that voters care.

    The 2016 result wasn’t that narrow, and it would’ve been even less narrow if the Prime Minister hadn’t campaigned on the dead body of St. Jo just before the polls opened.

    Similarly, I don’t think the Jez vs. Jews stuff is having any effect except to harden the resolve of Momentumistas. It’s like the entire UK media jetski’ed over the shark in 2016 and instead of coming back down they’re now heading for Uranus.

  5. What result does globalist commie trougher D. Miliband favour?

    And..as they have already proved to me beyond doubt that they will NOT ACCEPT any leave vote, why on earth should I believe their slanted stupid second referendum?

  6. We’ve voted to leave, that is final, or should be. The only choice that remains should be whether we agree to an EU sell out or a no deal Brexit. Remaining in the EU should not be an option in any second referendum.

  7. It was Miliboy D who was wangled a place at Oxford by his father in a way many people might think rather disgraceful.

    It was Miliboy E who sold the Labour Party to the Trots.

    No doubt their late, disgusting father would be proud of them.

  8. But if they did, I believe Leave would win by a larger margin.

    Agreed. Brits are notorious for being pugnacious.

    A second referendum is likely to have more people vote leave just to piss off the government types.

  9. We’ve already had a referendum on whether to leave or not and we voted to leave, so that’s already been decided. End of story.
    Another referendum would simply be about whether we accept the Chequers deal or not. i.e accept that treachery or leave with NO DEAL, NO BUNG to the EU and trade under WTO rules.

  10. Bloke in Costa Rica

    The Miliband brothers are living proof of the folly of not shooting communists when you get the chance.

  11. A square go referendum we patriots would win by a mile.

    But we know the fix is already in–two questions to divide leave and one for remain traitors.

    No second vote. A civil war perhaps but the vote is a done deal.

    All PV supporters need a T&S double quick.

  12. +1
    “Interesting how they rarely outline what the alternative option in such a vote would be”

    You can vote
    1. to accept chequers (assuming EU change their mind)
    2. wto exit
    3. beg with the EU to extend timelines and let us back in

    Certain people are not spending millions in order to vote between 1 and 2

    The vote is implicitly between 2 and 3 but they don’t spell out what 3 looks like, instead they sell a fantasy that 3 is “we remain as if Art 50 were never delivered”. Any good journalist should just push on what is the vote, and what actually happens if people for for 3, given the EU would need to agree (and it seems fair to assume that comes at a very heavy price indeed). All very dishonest and silly. Have yet to see this campaign pushed on defining their question and that tells you all you need to know about 100% of the press

  13. There is a real (albeit short-term) cost to Brexit. As anyone who’s worked in business (or any large organisation) will know, there’s always a cost to making any change – the hope/belief is that the future gain will outweigh the temporary pain.

    The bigger cost is uncertainty, which all businesses hate. Which is why we should have walked out of the EU talks as soon as it became obvious the other side were not seriously negotiating and only trying to string us along (about day 3) and commenced serious work on a WTO departure.

    But a second referendum (even ignoring the insult to democracy that would imply) would mean another … what? … 6-12 months of uncertainty. It’s the wrong answer to a non-existent problem.

  14. Just look at the report on Juncker fixing the appointment of Slemyar, tells you all you need to know about the EU and why leaving is a good idea

  15. According to my local MP, Sarah Woolaston (who is supporting a People’s Vote on the final deal), the franchise will be extended to include 16-year-olds, the UK’s 3m resident EU citizens, and British migrants that live on the continent.

  16. @isp001

    Yep. But I reckon they’re out of time – they should have splashed out (it’s an expensive campaign apparently) before the summer, when there might still have been time to get a referendum organised. Maybe even earlier. Given how long these things take, I can’t see any way that you could get it all through parliament, get whatever temporary agreement you need with the EU to make the options even meaningful (to vote on a deal there’d surely need to be a deal, and voting to remain or extend timescales is only an option if it’s been cleared with the EU first?), have the referendum campaign and there still to be room before March to implement the result.

  17. If 16-year-olds have the adult right to vote, they must also have the adult responsibilites of being held to contracts, being tried in adult courts, being banged up in adult prisons, being shot at as adult soldiers.

  18. And allow these 16 year olds to drink and smoke like adults as well…

    That’s not going to happen is it.

    Or maybe they will try to ban everyone from doing those as a way of levelling the playing field…

  19. As far as I can see the people’s vote brigade want to vote on whether or not we accept the final deal agreed by TerryM and the EU. The only way I can see that we can honour both the PV brigade and the first referendum is to do like DocBud says and allow two options:
    Leave on TerryM terms OR leave on No Deal (WTO) terms.
    I mean the PV people want to honour democracy as well as giving us the choice don’t they?

  20. what isp001 says. I assume the EU’s price for letting us withdraw the article 50 notice and stay in would be the end of our rebates and our opt-outs, as a minimum. Plus whatever Spain and Cyprus want on Gibraltar or the sovereign base, plus whatever anyone else wants on any old thing just as a matter of horsetrading. it’s not an option till it’s negotiated, just as Chequers ++ or minus-minus isn’t a real option until it’s agreed in principle, and none of that is realistically going to happen in time for a referendum, let alone both things happen as neat alternatives ready for a “people’s vote”.

    Ecksy, I’ve also seen the three questions described as two to divide stay (because one is Brexit in name only) and only one real leave option. either way, the three question format is not credible.

  21. It’s hard to believe “they” will allow a second referendum. They only allowed the first one because they were quite sure they’d win, and look what happened.

    If they lose again, there’s nowhere to hide.

    I don’t think they will risk it.

  22. We have to thank the Scots for voting 5:4 in favour of the Union. This emboldened Cameron into thinking he could confront any contentious issue and face it down with a referendum he thought his side would win.
    Blair made the same mistake with his wins in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, he thought his intelligence was always right and that as the Messiah he could not put a foot wrong as long as he was bold and interventionist.
    Thank you Scotland.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *