EasyJet shares slump as Brexit stops travellers booking flights
Budget airline easyjet admitted on Monday that bookings had succumbed to Brexit uncertainty, sparking a wider sell-off of airlines and holiday firms by spooked investors. The company’s shares tumbled almost 8%, or 85p, to 1032.5p as it admitted the political chaos over the UK’s EU exit and a spreading economic malaise in Europe had forced a more “cautious” approach to the second half of its financial year. Easyjet chief executive Johan Lundgren said: “For the second half we are seeing softness in both the UK and Europe, which we believe comes from macroeconomic uncertainty and many unanswered questions surrounding Brexit, which are together driving weaker customer demand.” While easyJet’s loss for the six months to March will be £275 million as expected, the airline is also facing a combined £45 million headwind from higher fuel bills and a weaker currency.
Its warning over the more turbulent outlook also hammered its major rival Ryanair, whose shares sank 6% to 1106 euro cents, while British Airways owner IAG dropped 7.8p to 504.2p. Among the tour operators, Thomas Cook fell 1p, or 4%, to 23.9p while TUI, which issued a warning of its own last week over the impact of grounded Boeing 737 Max jets, dropped another 1%, or 7.2p, to 728.4p. UBS analyst Jarrod Castle said he saw “material downside pressure to forecast consensus numbers” at easyJet, which stand at £564 million for the full year.
EasyJet shares slump as Brexit stops travellers booking flights
Budget airline easyjet admitted on Monday that bookings had succumbed to Brexit uncertainty, sparking a wider sell-off of airlines and holiday firms by spooked investors. The company’s shares tumbled almost 8%, or 85p, to 1032.5p as it admitted the political chaos over the UK’s EU exit and a spreading economic malaise in Europe had forced a more “cautious” approach to the second half of its financial year. Easyjet chief executive Johan Lundgren said: “For the second half we are seeing softness in both the UK and Europe, which we believe comes from macroeconomic uncertainty and many unanswered questions surrounding Brexit, which are together driving weaker customer demand.” While easyJet’s loss for the six months to March will be £275 million as expected, the airline is also facing a combined £45 million headwind from higher fuel bills and a weaker currency.
Its warning over the more turbulent outlook also hammered its major rival Ryanair, whose shares sank 6% to 1106 euro cents, while British Airways owner IAG dropped 7.8p to 504.2p. Among the tour operators, Thomas Cook fell 1p, or 4%, to 23.9p while TUI, which issued a warning of its own last week over the impact of grounded Boeing 737 Max jets, dropped another 1%, or 7.2p, to 728.4p. UBS analyst Jarrod Castle said he saw “material downside pressure to forecast consensus numbers” at easyJet, which stand at £564 million for the full year.
The most signed parliamentary petition of all time has had its parliamentary airing but the debate ended without even a vote.
More than six million people have backed calls for Article 50 to be revoked which would effectively cancel Brexit.
And today the petition debated in the smaller Westminster Hall chamber of the House of Commons.
Members of the newly formed Change UK party (formerly called The Independent Group) tried to force the debate to a vote so that it could be continued in the main chamber.
But the chair Steve McCabe interrupted the closing speech and did not call the normal vote.
As he ended proceedings Change UK MP Chris Leslie was heard to yell out "no".
Brexit minister Chris Heaton-Harris said the Government remained opposed to revoking Article 50 or calling a second referendum. He recognised the “frustrations and concerns” of the “substantial” number of people who signed the online petitions and the “hundreds of thousands” who joined the recent People’s Vote march on Parliament.
Rejecting calls for a People’s Vote, he said: “If we cannot show that we will uphold and respect the result of one referendum what guarantees could we give that we would uphold and respect the result of a second? Would we need a third, is it best out of five?”
Mr Heaton-Harris said the Government believed the 2016 referendum result had “settled the question” over Brexit and to “undermine what was expressed in that vote is a harmful precedent to set”.
Allowing the public a vote on the Brexit outcome is hardly undemocratic.
I would see it as a vote on the outcome rather than a second referendum.
It may yet be the only solution, to avoid no deal.
I have said many times that a peoples vote is not ideal.
Although many people would change their opinion dependant on the choice.
Brexit is clearly about choices.
I am certain that many people that disapprove of a people vote would change their view if faced with a choice of no deal or a referendum.
The choices we are left with are as follows,
No deal, although I am very doubtful on this as Parliament has already rejected this option a couple of times.
Pass the Withdrawal Agreement, which in many peoples eyes is the worst of all worlds, or the least worst option.
We have to apply for an extension to A50, and will need an acceptable reason to do so. This means a General Election or referendum.
I also don't that that to revoke A50 is ideal, but if we couldnt get an extension for some reason, I would find revoking preferable to crashing out with no deal.
Parliament seems to be going around in circles, voting on options that refer to trading arrangements. These arrangements are stage two of negotiations, and will all require the Withdrawal Agreement to be passed.
They wont pass the Withdrawal Agreement, we cant move any further forward with any deal until they do.
It is difficult to see that a General Election will help. It is likely to result in another hung Parliament, and we would be back to square one.
I think that the idea that this country will snap back to normality as soon as we leave the EU is foolish. People have become more intrenched in their views as the Brexit process has dragged on.
This is only the beginning, years of negotiations will follow.
So what is your idea of the solution?
It would appear that many of the general public that criticise Parliament for only being able to signal what they don't want, rather that what they do want, find themselves in exactly the same boat.
A no-deal Brexit is now more likely but can still be avoided, the EU's chief negotiator has said.
Michel Barnier said a long extension to the UK's current 12 April exit date carried "significant risks for the EU" and that a "strong justification would be needed" before the EU would agree.
A no-deal Brexit is now more likely but can still be avoided, the EU's chief negotiator has said.
Michel Barnier said a long extension to the UK's current 12 April exit date carried "significant risks for the EU" and that a "strong justification would be needed" before the EU would agree.
Waiting patiently for you to tell us all why you don't think the whole thing is a debacle and if you are happy now the deal has been rejected for the 3rd time and there is a real chance of no deal ?
Why would you have the audacity to point to one question that I hadn't answered, as I was busy playing poker, when you seem to ignore so many that are asked of you?
lol @ " audacity" .....I don't ignore anything , probably only read half of the things you type and even that's a struggle.
If that is the case, how could you possibly be aware that I hadn't answered a question?
Fair guess , If i just quickly scroll back without reading in depth your nonsense and quite correct in this case. Anyway , perhaps you would like to answer the question .
"Waiting patiently for you to tell us all why you don't think the whole thing is a debacle and if you are happy now the deal has been rejected for the 3rd time and there is a real chance of no deal ?"
You need to go back and have another look, this has been answered. While you are looking, you might want to answer some of your questions.
Well I've just looked back and I see neither an answer to my question nor any unanswered questions from me, perhaps you would like to direct me to both. Off out shopping for a few hours, perhaps that will be long enough for you to actually fudge up an answer , maybe even optimistically , an answer which isn't a question .
Why would you make this post, get me to dig them out, and still not answer them? If you are unable to, why not just say that?
Waiting patiently for you to tell us all why you don't think the whole thing is a debacle and if you are happy now the deal has been rejected for the 3rd time and there is a real chance of no deal ?
Why would you have the audacity to point to one question that I hadn't answered, as I was busy playing poker, when you seem to ignore so many that are asked of you?
lol @ " audacity" .....I don't ignore anything , probably only read half of the things you type and even that's a struggle.
If that is the case, how could you possibly be aware that I hadn't answered a question?
Fair guess , If i just quickly scroll back without reading in depth your nonsense and quite correct in this case. Anyway , perhaps you would like to answer the question .
"Waiting patiently for you to tell us all why you don't think the whole thing is a debacle and if you are happy now the deal has been rejected for the 3rd time and there is a real chance of no deal ?"
You need to go back and have another look, this has been answered. While you are looking, you might want to answer some of your questions.
Well I've just looked back and I see neither an answer to my question nor any unanswered questions from me, perhaps you would like to direct me to both. Off out shopping for a few hours, perhaps that will be long enough for you to actually fudge up an answer , maybe even optimistically , an answer which isn't a question .
Why would you make this post, get me to dig them out, and still not answer them? If you are unable to, why not just say that?
You need to calm down Haysie ! None of what you copied and pasted was a reply in any way to a direct question I asked you , just a convaluted wall of text . I think I've answered pretty much all of the questions , even though , last time I checked it wasn't against forum rules to ignore some which don't deserve an answer.
As far as the " what's my solution? " Difficult to answer because it's reliant on the monkeys actually coming together and agreeing on something, which is highly unlikely . So on that basis ( and unless there happens to be a lightbulb moment with them ) , I don't see any other way to deliver on the referendum promise than to exit with no deal . And that decision , might well be taken out of our hands anyway .
Surely the general public should not be happy with the least worst option.
Yet that looks like the best we can hope for as things stand.
An alternative path would be to have a run off in Parliament between Mays deal and the most popular option, which might be Common Market 2.0.
So they would firstly vote to find the most popular alternative to Mays deal, then vote to choose between Mays deal and the alternative.
These would have to be free votes to stop the Government sabotaging them, by insisting on the Cabinet abstaining.
We would then put it to the public in a confirmatory vote.
To cover all outcomes that have any popularity, the choice would be, no deal, the most popular deal, or remain.
Each campaign could be tightly regulated to ensure that any claims made were based on fact.
This would end the process, and provide a clear outcome.
The alternatives are quite stark. A Corbyn Government, a Boris Government, no deal, Mays least worst option, Mays successor walking out of negotiations and getting no deal down the line, an election with another minority Government sending us back to square one.
It has been suggested that JRM and those of his ERG colleagues that changed their minds and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, only did so because they thought they could undo it in the future, and not through any change of heart.
I think that the reaction of the public has been exaggerated. The Brexit Betrayal protests did not spill any blood on our streets.
I think the tone of the campaign will go a long way to affect the public reaction.
I have seen a number of people interviewed recently threatening to never vote again. Of course some may stick to this, others wont. A large number of people that voted in the referendum had never voted before, and may be unlikely to vote again anyway.
Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?
Many people are prepared to condemn solutions without being able to suggest a viable alternative.
Sounds reasonable until you consider that the alternative to Mays deal , might not be agreed by the EU , what the **** do you do then ? Or are you advocating that all possible alternative deals be negotiated (in principle) with them pre vote ? A public confirmatory vote will still leave certain sectors of the country unhappy and no doubt cause even more division . Whilst all of this would take even more time , no doubt adding to claims of businesses suffering due to Brexit uncertainty. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee we would be granted the extra time to complete this . I don't think any of us has seen the true extent of the angst that will be seen on the streets , if we don't exit .
The last bit you typed " Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?" The problem with that is , everyone has different ideas what the best outcome is .
Sounds reasonable until you consider that the alternative to Mays deal , might not be agreed by the EU , what the **** do you do then ? Or are you advocating that all possible alternative deals be negotiated (in principle) with them pre vote ? A public confirmatory vote will still leave certain sectors of the country unhappy and no doubt cause even more division . Whilst all of this would take even more time , no doubt adding to claims of businesses suffering due to Brexit uncertainty. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee we would be granted the extra time to complete this . I don't think any of us has seen the true extent of the angst that will be seen on the streets , if we don't exit .
The last bit you typed " Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?" The problem with that is , everyone has different ideas what the best outcome is .
Your last point is another reason why a vote would work.
The most popular deal seems to be the Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union, and is an off the shelf deal. The only other thing with any popularity is a Customs Union added to Mays deal.
The type of deal is part of phase 2 talks anyway.
The Labour Party has already said it would support the Withdrawal Agreement, with a confirmatory vote.
The Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal, and would easily get through with Labour support.
A long extension is required anyway, and provides certainty.
If we took a 2 year extension, it would take 6 months to get a referendum together, then if the decision was no deal, businesses would have a further 18 months notice before crashing out.
This would allow time for more preparation, and perhaps make it less catastrophic. Although I don't believe that a majority would be in favour of no deal.
If the majority voted for the deal, we would move into a transition period at the end of the extension, and businesses would have three and a half years notice, before new trading agreements took effect.
If we chose to stay in then everyone would know where they are. We wouldn't lose our preferential status, which might be the case if we had to rejoin.
A confirmatory vote with the three choices covers the views of the overwhelming majority, and those that don't get their way will see that this was because their choice wasn't voted for, rather than having to blame MPs.
The EU would give us a long extension to hold a referendum.
There would be just as much angst if we leave with no deal.
There is a danger in accepting a Blind Brexit, and having to trust the likes of Boris to do the right thing.
A referendum would end it, and allow the Government to get on with addressing what the PM described as the burning injustices.
Tackling these issues is more likely to bring the country together, than arguing over Brexit for the next 10 years.
Sounds reasonable until you consider that the alternative to Mays deal , might not be agreed by the EU , what the **** do you do then ? Or are you advocating that all possible alternative deals be negotiated (in principle) with them pre vote ? A public confirmatory vote will still leave certain sectors of the country unhappy and no doubt cause even more division . Whilst all of this would take even more time , no doubt adding to claims of businesses suffering due to Brexit uncertainty. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee we would be granted the extra time to complete this . I don't think any of us has seen the true extent of the angst that will be seen on the streets , if we don't exit .
The last bit you typed " Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?" The problem with that is , everyone has different ideas what the best outcome is .
Your last point is another reason why a vote would work.
The most popular deal seems to be the Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union, and is an off the shelf deal. The only other thing with any popularity is a Customs Union added to Mays deal.
The type of deal is part of phase 2 talks anyway.
The Labour Party has already said it would support the Withdrawal Agreement, with a confirmatory vote.
The Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal, and would easily get through with Labour support.
A long extension is required anyway, and provides certainty.
If we took a 2 year extension, it would take 6 months to get a referendum together, then if the decision was no deal, businesses would have a further 18 months notice before crashing out.
This would allow time for more preparation, and perhaps make it less catastrophic. Although I don't believe that a majority would be in favour of no deal.
If the majority voted for the deal, we would move into a transition period at the end of the extension, and businesses would have three and a half years notice, before new trading agreements took effect.
If we chose to stay in then everyone would know where they are. We wouldn't lose our preferential status, which might be the case if we had to rejoin.
A confirmatory vote with the three choices covers the views of the overwhelming majority, and those that don't get their way will see that this was because their choice wasn't voted for, rather than having to blame MPs.
The EU would give us a long extension to hold a referendum.
There would be just as much angst if we leave with no deal.
There is a danger in accepting a Blind Brexit, and having to trust the likes of Boris to do the right thing.
A referendum would end it, and allow the Government to get on with addressing what the PM described as the burning injustices.
Tackling these issues is more likely to bring the country together, than arguing over Brexit for the next 10 years.
Sorry, Haysie-I really wish i could agree with you, but I don't.
There is NOTHING with real popularity. The only majorities are to be against absolutely everything. IMO it is a great shame that Ken Clarke's plan (just) failed, but fail it did.
It is not true that the "Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal". There are plenty of "Blind Brexit" deals that could provide just as much certainty as suspending Art 50 for 2 years. You just won't accept anything with "Brexit" in the title.
There will be no agreement as to what questions to put to the electorate. That will likely cause massive upheaval in both the major parties, and make lifelong enemies from former friends. I believe either Civil War, or at very least massive Civil Unrest (on a scale not seen in living memory) is extremely likely.
Business would in no way welcome this "plan"-all that is being provided is a definite period of instability, followed by the complete unknown. Watch every single entrepreneur leave-they would have to.
"Everyone will know where they are". They would. They would know that their vote in 2016 has been completely ignored. Compare and contrast to the vote in 1975, when we had already joined the EEC before the vote took place.
If you really think that a referendum would end anything, then you are ignoring every single referendum that has previously happened, and what happened next. "Final Vote"? Don't make me laugh-whoever loses will not accept the result.
you trust the country to provide the answer. Not only do people not know the answers, they won't even agree on the question.
Sounds reasonable until you consider that the alternative to Mays deal , might not be agreed by the EU , what the **** do you do then ? Or are you advocating that all possible alternative deals be negotiated (in principle) with them pre vote ? A public confirmatory vote will still leave certain sectors of the country unhappy and no doubt cause even more division . Whilst all of this would take even more time , no doubt adding to claims of businesses suffering due to Brexit uncertainty. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee we would be granted the extra time to complete this . I don't think any of us has seen the true extent of the angst that will be seen on the streets , if we don't exit .
The last bit you typed " Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?" The problem with that is , everyone has different ideas what the best outcome is .
Your last point is another reason why a vote would work.
The most popular deal seems to be the Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union, and is an off the shelf deal. The only other thing with any popularity is a Customs Union added to Mays deal.
The type of deal is part of phase 2 talks anyway.
The Labour Party has already said it would support the Withdrawal Agreement, with a confirmatory vote.
The Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal, and would easily get through with Labour support.
A long extension is required anyway, and provides certainty.
If we took a 2 year extension, it would take 6 months to get a referendum together, then if the decision was no deal, businesses would have a further 18 months notice before crashing out.
This would allow time for more preparation, and perhaps make it less catastrophic. Although I don't believe that a majority would be in favour of no deal.
If the majority voted for the deal, we would move into a transition period at the end of the extension, and businesses would have three and a half years notice, before new trading agreements took effect.
If we chose to stay in then everyone would know where they are. We wouldn't lose our preferential status, which might be the case if we had to rejoin.
A confirmatory vote with the three choices covers the views of the overwhelming majority, and those that don't get their way will see that this was because their choice wasn't voted for, rather than having to blame MPs.
The EU would give us a long extension to hold a referendum.
There would be just as much angst if we leave with no deal.
There is a danger in accepting a Blind Brexit, and having to trust the likes of Boris to do the right thing.
A referendum would end it, and allow the Government to get on with addressing what the PM described as the burning injustices.
Tackling these issues is more likely to bring the country together, than arguing over Brexit for the next 10 years.
Sorry, Haysie-I really wish i could agree with you, but I don't.
There is NOTHING with real popularity. The only majorities are to be against absolutely everything. IMO it is a great shame that Ken Clarke's plan (just) failed, but fail it did.
It is not true that the "Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal". There are plenty of "Blind Brexit" deals that could provide just as much certainty as suspending Art 50 for 2 years. You just won't accept anything with "Brexit" in the title.
There will be no agreement as to what questions to put to the electorate. That will likely cause massive upheaval in both the major parties, and make lifelong enemies from former friends. I believe either Civil War, or at very least massive Civil Unrest (on a scale not seen in living memory) is extremely likely.
Business would in no way welcome this "plan"-all that is being provided is a definite period of instability, followed by the complete unknown. Watch every single entrepreneur leave-they would have to.
"Everyone will know where they are". They would. They would know that their vote in 2016 has been completely ignored. Compare and contrast to the vote in 1975, when we had already joined the EEC before the vote took place.
If you really think that a referendum would end anything, then you are ignoring every single referendum that has previously happened, and what happened next. "Final Vote"? Don't make me laugh-whoever loses will not accept the result.
you trust the country to provide the answer. Not only do people not know the answers, they won't even agree on the question.
I genuinely believe the bolded part of this is a likely reality if we re-introduce the brexit situation to the nation . The only reason you haven't seen it yet , is simply because there is still every chance we will leave as intended , knock that one out of the ball park , then see.
Country gave its answer and its been ignored god help any party knocking on my door for euro elections ..........only voting for a pro brexit MEP want them to wish they had let us leave Labour = vote to get general election no interest whether its best for country politicians who have resigned from party should be kicked out of parliment they not representing the party anymore Scotland are voting just to **** england off even more
its time the lot was sacked lying scum feathering their own nests
One of the main reasons why there is no majority for anything is that the Government forced the cabinet to abstain. They are therefore sabotaging the process. The number of votes cast on last nights 4 votes were between 483 and 572. We pay the wages of 650 MPs. These are yes or no votes, what possible excuse is there for abstaining. Who is being represented by an abstention? When I referred to the popularity of the solutions, I was thinking more about the electorate rather than MPs. The three things with any popularity amongst the electorate are no deal, a deal, or remaining. The fact that the Customs Union vote just failed, is down to the Tories abstentions, but would be absolutely no help to us moving forward at all. It would only help phase 2 of the negotiations. It would be of no assistance in getting the Withdrawal Agreement through at all. Unless the WA gets passed we will leave with no deal, end of. The PM split up the WA and the Political Declaration for the last vote. The PD is not legally binding. Hence the Blind Brexit. We will actually leave without knowing our trading relationship. I don't think you can use the terms Blind Brexit, and certainty in the same sentence. A future PM is not bound by anything in the PD. I think the question on the ballot paper is fairly obvious and logical. I don't think that anything we are likely to do will heal divisions in the short term. Business will surely have no complaints over the status quo for a reasonable period. Accepting the least worst solution doesn't inspire me, and we cant even get that passed. With all due respect you are sounding like an MP, you have made clear what you don't want, so what is the solution?
MPs seek to stop no-deal Brexit by tabling article 50 bill
A cross-party group of MPs will step up efforts to stop a no-deal Brexit on Wednesday, tabling a bill by Labour’s Yvette Cooper to extend article 50 beyond 12 April. MPs opposed to a no-deal outcome will put plans to hold another round of indicative votes on hold after parliament remained in deadlock on Monday night. Instead, efforts will focus on Cooper’s bill, which would require Theresa May to put forward a proposal for the extension of article 50 to ensure the UK cannot leave the bloc with no deal by default.
An amendment passed by MPs last week gives them the power to take control of the order paper on certain dates, which could give MPs time to debate and pass the bill – though it will face several difficult hurdles in both the Commons and the Lords.
Cooper said that the government could decide how long an extension to propose. “We are now in a really dangerous situation with a serious and growing risk of no deal in 10 days’ time,” Cooper said.
“The prime minister has a responsibility to prevent that happening. She needs to put forward a proposal, including saying how long an extension she thinks we need to sort things out. If the government won’t act urgently, then parliament has a responsibility to try to ensure that happens even though we are right up against the deadline.”
The bill is backed by Sir Oliver Letwin, the Tory MP behind the move to hold indicative votes. Letwin said it was worth attempting to pass the bill though the MPs expected to face substantial opposition. “This is a last-ditch attempt to prevent our country being exposed to the risks inherent in a no deal exit,” he said. ‘“We realise this is difficult. But it is definitely worth trying.”
The one-clause bill will be presented on Tuesday, requiring the prime minister to immediately come forward with a proposal for an extension to the article 50 period beyond 12 April for parliament to debate and vote on. MPs will then present a business motion for debate on Wednesday to pave the way for all the Commons stages of the bill – which is likely to spark a fierce debate on whether it should be allowed to proceed. Should MPs pass the business motion and give the bill permission to proceed, MPs hope to complete all the different stages of the bill in the House of Commons on Thursday and then send it the House of Lords. It remains possible that the government could bring back a third meaningful vote on May’s Brexit deal later this week, if the Speaker, John Bercow, permits it. MPs could also bring back more indicative votes on Thursday, on different Brexit options including a referendum or a customs union. Labour MP Lucy Powell, one of the key movers behind the Norway-style deal pushed by a cross-party group of MPs during the indicative votes process, said parliament needed to take on an even bigger role.
We’ve put the government back in the driving seat - but it can’t drive,” she said. “A motley crew of backbenchers without the resource and power of the government have actually achieved more consensus in a few weeks than government has in many months.”
Comments
Michel Barnier said a long extension to the UK's current 12 April exit date carried "significant risks for the EU" and that a "strong justification would be needed" before the EU would agree.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47783127
If you are unable to, why not just say that?
None of what you copied and pasted was a reply in any way to a direct question I asked you , just a convaluted wall of text .
I think I've answered pretty much all of the questions , even though , last time I checked it wasn't against forum rules to ignore some which don't deserve an answer.
Difficult to answer because it's reliant on the monkeys actually coming together and agreeing on something, which is highly unlikely .
So on that basis ( and unless there happens to be a lightbulb moment with them ) , I don't see any other way to deliver on the referendum promise than to exit with no deal .
And that decision , might well be taken out of our hands anyway .
Yet that looks like the best we can hope for as things stand.
An alternative path would be to have a run off in Parliament between Mays deal and the most popular option, which might be Common Market 2.0.
So they would firstly vote to find the most popular alternative to Mays deal, then vote to choose between Mays deal and the alternative.
These would have to be free votes to stop the Government sabotaging them, by insisting on the Cabinet abstaining.
We would then put it to the public in a confirmatory vote.
To cover all outcomes that have any popularity, the choice would be, no deal, the most popular deal, or remain.
Each campaign could be tightly regulated to ensure that any claims made were based on fact.
This would end the process, and provide a clear outcome.
The alternatives are quite stark. A Corbyn Government, a Boris Government, no deal, Mays least worst option, Mays successor walking out of negotiations and getting no deal down the line, an election with another minority Government sending us back to square one.
It has been suggested that JRM and those of his ERG colleagues that changed their minds and voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, only did so because they thought they could undo it in the future, and not through any change of heart.
I think that the reaction of the public has been exaggerated. The Brexit Betrayal protests did not spill any blood on our streets.
I think the tone of the campaign will go a long way to affect the public reaction.
I have seen a number of people interviewed recently threatening to never vote again. Of course some may stick to this, others wont. A large number of people that voted in the referendum had never voted before, and may be unlikely to vote again anyway.
Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?
Many people are prepared to condemn solutions without being able to suggest a viable alternative.
A public confirmatory vote will still leave certain sectors of the country unhappy and no doubt cause even more division .
Whilst all of this would take even more time , no doubt adding to claims of businesses suffering due to Brexit uncertainty. Plus there is absolutely no guarantee we would be granted the extra time to complete this .
I don't think any of us has seen the true extent of the angst that will be seen on the streets , if we don't exit .
The last bit you typed " Shouldn't the priority be the best outcome for the country?"
The problem with that is , everyone has different ideas what the best outcome is .
The most popular deal seems to be the Common Market 2.0, which is Norway plus a Customs Union, and is an off the shelf deal. The only other thing with any popularity is a Customs Union added to Mays deal.
The type of deal is part of phase 2 talks anyway.
The Labour Party has already said it would support the Withdrawal Agreement, with a confirmatory vote.
The Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal, and would easily get through with Labour support.
A long extension is required anyway, and provides certainty.
If we took a 2 year extension, it would take 6 months to get a referendum together, then if the decision was no deal, businesses would have a further 18 months notice before crashing out.
This would allow time for more preparation, and perhaps make it less catastrophic. Although I don't believe that a majority would be in favour of no deal.
If the majority voted for the deal, we would move into a transition period at the end of the extension, and businesses would have three and a half years notice, before new trading agreements took effect.
If we chose to stay in then everyone would know where they are. We wouldn't lose our preferential status, which might be the case if we had to rejoin.
A confirmatory vote with the three choices covers the views of the overwhelming majority, and those that don't get their way will see that this was because their choice wasn't voted for, rather than having to blame MPs.
The EU would give us a long extension to hold a referendum.
There would be just as much angst if we leave with no deal.
There is a danger in accepting a Blind Brexit, and having to trust the likes of Boris to do the right thing.
A referendum would end it, and allow the Government to get on with addressing what the PM described as the burning injustices.
Tackling these issues is more likely to bring the country together, than arguing over Brexit for the next 10 years.
There is NOTHING with real popularity. The only majorities are to be against absolutely everything. IMO it is a great shame that Ken Clarke's plan (just) failed, but fail it did.
It is not true that the "Withdrawal Agreement has to get through, unless we wish to leave with no deal". There are plenty of "Blind Brexit" deals that could provide just as much certainty as suspending Art 50 for 2 years. You just won't accept anything with "Brexit" in the title.
There will be no agreement as to what questions to put to the electorate. That will likely cause massive upheaval in both the major parties, and make lifelong enemies from former friends. I believe either Civil War, or at very least massive Civil Unrest (on a scale not seen in living memory) is extremely likely.
Business would in no way welcome this "plan"-all that is being provided is a definite period of instability, followed by the complete unknown. Watch every single entrepreneur leave-they would have to.
"Everyone will know where they are". They would. They would know that their vote in 2016 has been completely ignored. Compare and contrast to the vote in 1975, when we had already joined the EEC before the vote took place.
If you really think that a referendum would end anything, then you are ignoring every single referendum that has previously happened, and what happened next. "Final Vote"? Don't make me laugh-whoever loses will not accept the result.
you trust the country to provide the answer. Not only do people not know the answers, they won't even agree on the question.
The only reason you haven't seen it yet , is simply because there is still every chance we will leave as intended , knock that one out of the ball park , then see.
Labour = vote to get general election no interest whether its best for country
politicians who have resigned from party should be kicked out of parliment they not representing the party anymore
Scotland are voting just to **** england off even more
its time the lot was sacked lying scum feathering their own nests
When I referred to the popularity of the solutions, I was thinking more about the electorate rather than MPs. The three things with any popularity amongst the electorate are no deal, a deal, or remaining.
The fact that the Customs Union vote just failed, is down to the Tories abstentions, but would be absolutely no help to us moving forward at all. It would only help phase 2 of the negotiations. It would be of no assistance in getting the Withdrawal Agreement through at all.
Unless the WA gets passed we will leave with no deal, end of.
The PM split up the WA and the Political Declaration for the last vote. The PD is not legally binding. Hence the Blind Brexit. We will actually leave without knowing our trading relationship.
I don't think you can use the terms Blind Brexit, and certainty in the same sentence.
A future PM is not bound by anything in the PD.
I think the question on the ballot paper is fairly obvious and logical.
I don't think that anything we are likely to do will heal divisions in the short term.
Business will surely have no complaints over the status quo for a reasonable period.
Accepting the least worst solution doesn't inspire me, and we cant even get that passed.
With all due respect you are sounding like an MP, you have made clear what you don't want, so what is the solution?
the people are pickles for sure
A cross-party group of MPs will step up efforts to stop a no-deal Brexit on Wednesday, tabling a bill by Labour’s Yvette Cooper to extend article 50 beyond 12 April.
MPs opposed to a no-deal outcome will put plans to hold another round of indicative votes on hold after parliament remained in deadlock on Monday night.
Instead, efforts will focus on Cooper’s bill, which would require Theresa May to put forward a proposal for the extension of article 50 to ensure the UK cannot leave the bloc with no deal by default.
An amendment passed by MPs last week gives them the power to take control of the order paper on certain dates, which could give MPs time to debate and pass the bill – though it will face several difficult hurdles in both the Commons and the Lords.
Cooper said that the government could decide how long an extension to propose. “We are now in a really dangerous situation with a serious and growing risk of no deal in 10 days’ time,” Cooper said.
“The prime minister has a responsibility to prevent that happening. She needs to put forward a proposal, including saying how long an extension she thinks we need to sort things out. If the government won’t act urgently, then parliament has a responsibility to try to ensure that happens even though we are right up against the deadline.”
The bill is backed by Sir Oliver Letwin, the Tory MP behind the move to hold indicative votes. Letwin said it was worth attempting to pass the bill though the MPs expected to face substantial opposition.
“This is a last-ditch attempt to prevent our country being exposed to the risks inherent in a no deal exit,” he said. ‘“We realise this is difficult. But it is definitely worth trying.”
The one-clause bill will be presented on Tuesday, requiring the prime minister to immediately come forward with a proposal for an extension to the article 50 period beyond 12 April for parliament to debate and vote on.
MPs will then present a business motion for debate on Wednesday to pave the way for all the Commons stages of the bill – which is likely to spark a fierce debate on whether it should be allowed to proceed.
Should MPs pass the business motion and give the bill permission to proceed, MPs hope to complete all the different stages of the bill in the House of Commons on Thursday and then send it the House of Lords.
It remains possible that the government could bring back a third meaningful vote on May’s Brexit deal later this week, if the Speaker, John Bercow, permits it. MPs could also bring back more indicative votes on Thursday, on different Brexit options including a referendum or a customs union.
Labour MP Lucy Powell, one of the key movers behind the Norway-style deal pushed by a cross-party group of MPs during the indicative votes process, said parliament needed to take on an even bigger role.
We’ve put the government back in the driving seat - but it can’t drive,” she said. “A motley crew of backbenchers without the resource and power of the government have actually achieved more consensus in a few weeks than government has in many months.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/mps-seek-to-stop-no-deal-brexit-by-tabling-article-50-bill/ar-BBVwCHN?ocid=spartandhp