People's vote

I remember someone saying on here that they would stay in the EU about a month or so ago

I don't see a second referendum happening, though it's starting to look like a very minor possibility now.

A second referendum requires a number of improbable things to actually happen. First, a national unity government. The Tories have no interest in a second referendum, and the People's Vote campaign has made no effort whatsoever to attract Tories.

I find that in itself strange and suspicious. People's Vote are not acting like people who are fighting for something they know they can win. Why aren't they trying to attract Brexiteers to the idea of a second referendum? It would help if they could get some on board. Why are they insisting on Labour doing a vote of no confidence soon, instead of waiting to maximize chances of winning? What sort of Labour member does not want to increase the chances of Labour gaining access to power? It sometimes looks like the campaign is there purely for the purposes of gaining votes, not to actually achieve anything.

Let's assume things get to a national unity government. Then, the EU would need to provide for some extra time. You could, in principle, do a referendum in a hurry, but only at the cost of de-legitimizing it, and what is the purpose of that? You wouldn't want the losers to turn around and say it shouldn't really count because there was no postal vote. It's very likely that the EU will only give more time on condition that the "no deal" option isn't on the ballot.

Then, the question would have to pass a vote in parliament. With "no deal" out of the ballot, all hardline Brexiteers would be against a referendum. And deciding the question itself would be thorny. A formula would need to be found that satisfied a majority of MPs.

Most People's Vote campaigners don't even seem to be working towards that slim possibility. When a journalist asked Tony Blair what he thought the referendum question should be, he said Remain vs hard Brexit. It wasn't clear what he meant by hard Brexit, except that he made it plain that it was not May's deal... so presumably "no deal". That probably wouldn't be acceptable to the EU, and it wouldn't be acceptable to the Tory party, that still has quite a few MPs that support May's deal. Why is he then proposing a question that he should know has very little chances of being passed in parliament in real life? The only reason I can see is this: he knows full well that's the sort of question that Remainers would feel confident they could win. In other words, he was proposing the question that would give Remainers false hope, rather than a question that has real chances of being put in an actual referendum.

In a group meditation a while back, without any knowledge of how UK government works (sorry about that), I had a vision that popped out of nowhere that a Parliament judge, whatever a Parliament judge is, declared Brexit unlawful because it had come from fraud.

Oddly, the vision popped up when we were looking for visions for 2025.  I realize the timing was odd, but it was an unexpected vision that came out of nowhere and those are often the most unbiased and accurate.  Perhaps it's just a popular film  that comes out about Brexit in the mid twenties. Or perhaps it really happens.