Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[ClaphamFox]

I’m beginning to think that the deal might get through after all. The one thing that Brexiteer MPs fear more than anything else is a second referendum – they know it could well go against them and if it does there will be no Brexit. They also know that getting rid of May could easily result in a second referendum. If they’re offered enough of a compromise on the Irish backstop that enables them to vote for the deal without losing face, they may well take up that option. However it seems very likely the DUP will NOT vote for the deal, which will leave the government dependent on support from Labour rebels in leave constituencies.

[FoxNotFox]

14 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m beginning to think that the deal might get through after all.

Yep, me too. I think the 'project fear' of stare into the "abyss" will work on enough MPs to swing it, despite their misgivings.

 

But I wouldn't bet on it. There could be twists and turns yet. If it weren't so damned serious I'd probably be enjoying it.

[SMX11]

I thought there was a withdrawal bill passed earlier in the year which revokes the 1972 European Communities Act? 

 

So am I correct in saying that the parliament itself cannot stop 'no deal' without the government stopping it? Not sure Mrs May would last long if she attempted it.

[ClaphamFox]

28 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

I thought there was a withdrawal bill passed earlier in the year which revokes the 1972 European Communities Act? 

 

So am I correct in saying that the parliament itself cannot stop 'no deal' without the government stopping it? Not sure Mrs May would last long if she attempted it.

The prime minister - whoever it is - has to make a statement to MPs by 21 January if no deal has been agreed with the EU. MPs would then have the opportunity to vote on the government's plan to leave without a deal and although that vote would not be legally binding, it would be very difficult to ignore politically. At the same time, if no deal is agreed by early next year, markets are likely to tank, the business community will be up in arms and public opinion is very likely to be heavily against leaving without a deal. It would be highly unlikely that the government would push ahead with no deal under those circumstances. If it tried to, there could be a vote of no confidence in the government in parliament (which would be joined by many Tory MPs) and the government would collapse, which would trigger an election. To avoid this, the government would be likely to agree to a second referendum.

 

As things stand, I think the most likely outcomes are, in order:

 

1. An amended version of May's deal being approved

2. A 2nd referendum

3. Leaving without a deal*

 

*with 3 being a very remote possibility. 

Edited 21 November 2018 by ClaphamFox

[SMX11]

10 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

The prime minister - whoever it is - has to make a statement to MPs by 21 January if no deal has been agreed with the EU. MPs will then have the opportunity to vote on the government's plan to leave without a deal and although that vote would not be legally binding, it would be very difficult to ignore politically. At the same time, if no deal is agreed by early next year, markets are likely to tank, the business community will be up in arms and public opinion is very likely to be heavily against leaving without a deal. It would be highly unlikely that the government would push ahead with no deal under those circumstances. If it tried to, there could be a vote of no confidence in the government in parliament (which would be joined by many Tory MPs) and the government would collapse, which would trigger an election. To avoid this, the government would be likely to agree to a second referendum.

 

As things stand, I think the most likely outcomes are, in order:

 

1. An amended version of May's deal being approved

2. A 2nd referendum

3. Leaving without a deal*

 

*with 3 being a very remote possibility. 

Thank you for the clarification. I think ordering another referendum would damage our current political system beyond repair. I would suggest that a second referendum would have a fraction of the original turn out and therefore lack any legitimacy which will prolong this political climate.

 

No deal with ad hoc agreements and negotiate with EU as third country would be the best thing to do now after May's shitshow of a 'negotiation'. At least it would give us the freedom to mitigate any disruption in the meantime.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Every time I see Jacob Rees-Mogg I am reminded of Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year.

AND OLIVER HAS RUN HIMSELF OVER!

 

What a great twit!

[ClaphamFox]

2 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Thank you for the clarification. I think ordering another referendum would damage our current political system beyond repair. I would suggest that a second referendum would have a fraction of the original turn out and therefore lack any legitimacy which will prolong this political climate.

 

No deal with ad hoc agreements and negotiate with EU as third country would be the best thing to do now after May's shitshow of a 'negotiation'. At least it would give us the freedom to mitigate any disruption in the meantime.

A second referendum is a perfectly sensible option if you believe in democracy. We know much more about what Brexit will actually mean than we did in June 2016 - the public can make a much more informed decision. Obviously some people want to leave the EU no matter what and will vote the same way again irrespective of whatever 'deal' is on offer, but I'm willing to bet that there are also plenty of people who voted leave in 2016 but were less certain about it, and may have changed their minds since. Surely it's better to take this important step in our country's history with a clear and fresh democratic mandate?

 

 

Edited 21 November 2018 by ClaphamFox

[SMX11]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

A second referendum is a perfectly sensible option if you believe in democracy. We know much more about what Brexit will actually mean than we did in June 2016 - the public can make a much more informed decision. Obviously some people want to leave the EU no matter what and will vote the same way again irrespective of whatever 'deal' is on offer, but I'm willing to be that there are also plenty of people who voted leave in 2016 but were less certain about it, and may have changed their minds since. Surely it's better to take this important step in our country's history with a clear and fresh democratic mandate?

 

 

The issue is that referendums aren't really compatible with our Constitution. The first one showed completely that both main parties don't represent the majority of the electorate. Both parties ran on leaving the EU in their last manifesto and I personally would rather a general election than a referendum because the remain and leave 'parties' are not elected as such and therefore their feet cannot be held to the fire in that regard.

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

19 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

A second referendum is a perfectly sensible option if you believe in democracy. We know much more about what Brexit will actually mean than we did in June 2016 - the public can make a much more informed decision. Obviously some people want to leave the EU no matter what and will vote the same way again irrespective of whatever 'deal' is on offer, but I'm willing to be that there are also plenty of people who voted leave in 2016 but were less certain about it, and may have changed their minds since. Surely it's better to take this important step in our country's history with a clear and fresh democratic mandate?

A second referendum resulting in remain would be a very dangerous in my opinion. Especially when it’s being campaigned for by people whose hysterical reaction to the first referendum and refusal to accept the it while calling leavers every name under the sun. Public trust in politics would just implode and who knows where that could lead? 

 

If there IS to be a second referendum then Remain shouldn’t be an option. 

[leicsmac]

It's fair enough saying that saying a second referendum may result in serious unrest no matter the result...

 

...however, at this point, I have to ask: is there any course of action henceforth that will not result in such unrest from one area or another?

 

The divisions, right now, seem to run very deep.

Edited 21 November 2018 by leicsmac

[Bobby Hundreds]

45 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

No deal with ad hoc agreements and negotiate with EU as third country would be the best thing to do now after May's shitshow of a 'negotiation'. At least it would give us the freedom to mitigate any disruption in the meantime.

 

Been a hell of a lot better than David Davis managed. What an absolute fraud he is. 

[urban.spaceman]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's fair enough saying that saying a second referendum may result in serious unrest no matter the result...

 

...however, at this point, I have to ask: is there any course of action henceforth that will not result in such unrest from one area or another?

 

The divisions, right now, seem to run very deep.

Which is why David Cameron should be charged with gross negligence, dereliction of duty and for being an utter twat.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Which is why David Cameron should be charged with gross negligence, dereliction of duty and for being an utter twat.

You left out fornicating with a pig's head.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's fair enough saying that saying a second referendum may result in serious unrest no matter the result...

 

...however, at this point, I have to ask: is there any course of action henceforth that will not result in such unrest from one area or another?

 

The divisions, right now, seem to run very deep.

Quite. Whatever Brexit we do end up getting, it's not going to be the one millions of people thought they were going to get.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

A second referendum is a perfectly sensible option if you believe in democracy. We know much more about what Brexit will actually mean than we did in June 2016 - the public can make a much more informed decision. Obviously some people want to leave the EU no matter what and will vote the same way again irrespective of whatever 'deal' is on offer, but I'm willing to be that there are also plenty of people who voted leave in 2016 but were less certain about it, and may have changed their minds since. Surely it's better to take this important step in our country's history with a clear and fresh democratic mandate?

So when do we have the third referendum after the second? If more referendums is more democracy then we do we get to have them on other issues - or does democracy just stop after we vote remain in another one? Of course it does, we all know that don't we? No reason why a second referendum would even be binding anyway, the vote would still come to parliament.

A second referendum is possible but as I've said it can't happen under the Tories as it would destroy them, so much would have to happen to see it, we'd need another election, a Labour victory and then a failed negotiation from them before parliament would vote for it.

If we had a second referendum now though and the vote was to leave again, what course of action is taken? The only second referendum I can see that would be fair and uphold the result of the first is one where the two options are May's deal or no deal.

[Guest MattP]

45 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...however, at this point, I have to ask: is there any course of action henceforth that will not result in such unrest from one area or another?

No one is ever going to be happy, but Remainers can't exactly go out and start rioting because the decision of a referendum they lost was actually implemented, 17.4 million people will quite rightly feel like their vote doesn't matter one bit if the biggest mandate ever given by the British people ends up with it being destroyed and reversed by the establishment.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history will know if you deny people the chance to change things at the ballot box all they'll have left is bullets and bombs to do it.

Edited 21 November 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

No one is ever going to be happy, but Remainers can't exactly go out and start rioting because the decision of a referendum they lost was actually implemented, 17.4 million people will quite rightly feel like their vote doesn't matter one bit if the biggest mandate ever given by the British people ends up with it being destroyed and reversed by the establishment.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history will know if you deny people the chance to change things at the ballot box all they'll have left is bullets and bombs to do it.

While I agree with the general sentiment here, I think a better phrasing would be "it would be wrong for Remainers to go out and riot" rather than they "can't" riot - they certainly can do that if they want to, and that's rather my point - there's a lot of numbers and a lot of antipathy on either side of the debate and expecting either one to simply accept the terms of the other without possible, if not probable, unrest seems, right now, to be naive.

[FoxNotFox]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

So when do we have the third referendum after the second? 

It could be a question on the ballot paper for each and every future election - just to continually assess public mood.

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m beginning to think that the deal might get through after all. The one thing that Brexiteer MPs fear more than anything else is a second referendum – they know it could well go against them and if it does there will be no Brexit. They also know that getting rid of May could easily result in a second referendum. If they’re offered enough of a compromise on the Irish backstop that enables them to vote for the deal without losing face, they may well take up that option. However it seems very likely the DUP will NOT vote for the deal, which will leave the government dependent on support from Labour rebels in leave constituencies.

I'm not sure that's completely true, JRM and Baker are both on record as saying that there is no point in this as it isn't Brexit anyway, you can't threaten people to vote for something that isn't Brexit by threatening them with no Brexit, what they'll need to be convinced about to vote for the deal in reality is either a major change to the Irish backstop and the unilateral withdrawment or that there is a chance of revisiting the treaty that is signed in the future.

I do agree the deal has a chance of getting through though now we know they can't even get the letters to 48, it will be difficult, but it's not impossible a lump of Moderates from either side of the house can balance out those nays - even more so as Corbyn looks more and more hopeless and opportunistic in opposing it.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, FoxNotFox said:

It could be a question on the ballot paper for each and every future election - just to continually assess public mood.

The think the EU would just end up throwing us out if we did that

 

Realistically this is the only chance we will get to leave the EU, we certainly won't ever be asked again as they can't risk us giving the wrong result, if we do have to end up staying in we may as well fight alongside the other parties in Europe to take it in a direction more suited to what out side wants and make it an absolute nightmare for those who wanted us to Remain and take the rules of it, but I really hope it doesn't get to that.

The European Parliament is going to look very different in June 2019 as the "populist" uprising in the West continues and the East continues to become more recalcitrant to the policies imposed on them.

[lifted*fox]

I go to the doctor with a pain in my foot and he says 'look we're going to have to remove the foot but everything else will be fine, you'll feel better and life will go on'. I say 'OK, based on that optimism let's do it'. 

 

In the months leading up to my operation I decide to get a few second opinions and every other doctor tells me that actually there's a very high risk that I will lose my entire leg and need a wheelchair for the rest of my life. 

 

Based on this new information I quite fancy changing my decision but unfortunately the doctor won't let me because its a done deal and despite my new found knowledge I'm going to have to go through with it anyway. 

 

People should be allowed to vote on the final outcome with remain as an option. If May's deal or no deal are deemed good enough they will get the higher votes and we can move forward. They won't though because neither of them present better opportunities and a brighter future for our country. Both of those options remove a plethora of rights and privaliges from people for no gain. 

 

The original referendum is under investigation for illegal funding and potential interference from Russian investors. Given what we're seeing in the USA its impossible to think that some sort of ****ery wasn't going on. We cannot enact Brexit whilst its quite possible that the numbers have been significantly tampered with. 

 

Something of this scale should be put on hold until we find out how many of those votes were genuine. We can get a clearer picture by having a vote that demands anyone who is eligible votes on the information they now have. 

 

Anyone claiming a second vote isnt democratic is off their rocker and needs to give their head a wobble. Its the ultimate democratic thing to do given the bullshit surrounding the first vote. The only people who don't want it are those scared that the outcome will be different. 

 

Everything now points to ANY form of Brexit to be damaging to this country, short term and long term. I ain't seeing 17.4 million people voting for that, no way. 

[ClaphamFox]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

No one is ever going to be happy, but Remainers can't exactly go out and start rioting because the decision of a referendum they lost was actually implemented, 17.4 million people will quite rightly feel like their vote doesn't matter one bit if the biggest mandate ever given by the British people ends up with it being destroyed and reversed by the establishment.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of history will know if you deny people the chance to change things at the ballot box all they'll have left is bullets and bombs to do it.

The point is that the public may have changed its mind as it has become clearer what leaving the EU will entail. Obviously we know that polls are fallible, but recently polls have indicated that a clear majority of the public now want to remain in the EU, which - if true - would mean we are about to take a momentous step that most people don't want us to take. That has to be worth testing via a referendum, surely?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

The point is that the public may have changed its mind as it has become clearer what leaving the EU will entail. Obviously we know that polls are fallible, but recently polls have indicated that a clear majority of the public now want to remain in the EU, which - if true - would mean we are about to take a momentous step that most people don't want us to take. That has to be worth testing via a referendum, surely?

The one major poll carried out on this was by Channel 4/Opium and they came to a conclusion a new vote would be 53% Remain - on Referendum Day the same company said the vote would be 52% Remain. You can't have another referendum everytime public opinion changes a few points.

I'd have a lot more respect for the people's vote mob if they were just honest, admit they don't know how the next vote will go but they are just prepared to give it a go and hope Remain can nick it and then we can never have a referendum again.

[ClaphamFox]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

The one major poll carried out on this was by Channel 4/Opium and they came to a conclusion a new vote would be 53% Remain - on Referendum Day the same company said the vote would be 52% Remain. You can't have another referendum everytime public opinion changes a few points.

I'd have a lot more respect for the people's vote mob if they were just honest, admit they don't know how the next vote will go but they are just prepared to give it a go and hope Remain can nick it and then we can never have a referendum again.

Yougov have also conducted a poll in the last week and found 54% in favour of remain. Nobody is suggesting we hold a referendum every time the polls shift. However, one more referendum before we take this momentous step, with much more information at our disposal this time, surely can't be a bad thing?

 

I'd have a lot more respect for the Brexit mob if they were just honest and admitted that the reason they object so strongly to a second referendum is that they're terrified of the outcome.

 

Edited to add - just seen this:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/amber-rudd-says-parliament-will-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-happening-11559382

Edited 21 November 2018 by ClaphamFox

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yougov have also conducted a poll in the last week and found 54% in favour of remain. Nobody is suggesting we hold a referendum every time the polls shift. However, one more referendum before we take this momentous step, with much more information at our disposal this time, surely can't be a bad thing?

 

I'd have a lot more respect for the Brexit mob if they were just honest and admitted that the reason they object so strongly to a second referendum is that they're terrified of the outcome.

Why just one more? Why not two more just to double make sure? Also, if Leave wins again what happens? It doesn't change the arithmetic in parliament, does it means we go with May's deal? No Deal? A deal negotiated after May has been removed and replace with a Brexiteer?

I'd imagine the Brexit mob are probably concerned as to why the vote of their original decision wasn't respected when they were told it would be, why would a single one of them trust that their vote would be respected in a second one when it already hasn't been in the first? Who is to say we don't then have a third referendum after transition as then we'll of course know even more about what it means? Maybe a fourth while the backstop remains in place, maybe a fifth for when we decide to leave the Customs Union?

 

Maybe they are mistaken in thinking that the idea of a second referendum isn't really a demonstration of democracy but a chance for people who have always got their own way to continue to do so.