Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[SMX11]

2 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Matt, you're in here mostly fighting the good fight by yourself now - tough job.

 

Yes, all of the sources I post are wrong / incorrect / out-of-date / project fear / biased, etc.

 

So please can you take some time to post some genuine sources that show how good Brexit is going to be for us?

 

Because I can't find any, from any source, anywhere. 

Could you link me to a report where the assumptions of these government stats are laid out? My experience with these documents are that they assume stupid things to get the answer they want........  

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

Matt, you're in here mostly fighting the good fight by yourself now - tough job.

 

Yes, all of the sources I post are wrong / incorrect / out-of-date / project fear / biased, etc.

 

So please can you take some time to post some genuine sources that show how good Brexit is going to be for us?

 

Because I can't find any, from any source, anywhere. 

I won't be, this thread has turned a bit shit now, bit like the Trump thread, no real debate, too much groupthink, copies/pastes and the odd insult - fortunately I'm a busy man so don't have much time anyway. All I asked was for your source that the EU have said they will revoke Article 50 - the article I have posted there from the FT yesterday says otherwise.

I'm not backing May's Brexit deal at all as it is worse than staying in the EU - to get the benefits of Brexit and connect with the emerging markets and economies you do need a clean break from the SM and CU - then we have the moral aspect of Brexit which ensures we leave things like the ECJ and the European Arrest Warrant, which we appear now to have no intention of despite it having been responsible for citizens of our country being escorted to foreign jails often on flimsy evidence, here's a summary of it from the Guardian - what pains me about this is wee America doing the same the defenders of it would be up in arms over the situation -  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/05/extradition-european-arrest-warrants

Read the case of Andrew Symeou for a more recent example, although in reality we've come to this because we can't find a technological solution to the Irish border, around the same time the US has managed to land a robot on Mars - that depresses me no end.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, hairy said:

This sounds like something from /r/donald. Rubbish everyone and hope it deflects the truth

Why do you trust the government forecasts given the recent record of them? Genuinely interested.

We get told never to trust the Tories yet as soon as they throw something out that suits we have to take is as gospel - it's very peculiar.

[SMX11]

Not read any reports of these forecasts but some of the comments I have read on social media say that once again these forecasts assume no policy response in the event of no deal and assumes that we extend the CET to the EU. I'm sorry but that it total BS.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

Not read any reports of these forecasts but some of the comments I have read on social media say that once again these forecasts assume no policy response in the event of no deal and assumes that we extend the CET to the EU. I'm sorry but that it total BS.

Did you really expect anything else? We've had nothing but total garbage from the treasury even since they called the referendum, project fear from Cameron and Osborne and a litany of incorrect forecasts from Hammond since he took over, unestimating growth in almost every single quarter since (chuck in Carney, the BoE and the CBI as well for good measure).

One of the reasons so many are desperate to overturn this result is because they know they are going to look completely ludicrous in having backed the predictions of the treasury throughout the process, proven totally wrong in the immediate aftermath and most likely post-Brexit.

Edited 28 November 2018 by MattP

[Rincewind]

Great reply to Theresa May's letter to the people pleading to support her deal.

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/politics/this-brilliant-response-to-theresa-mays-brexit-letter-is-going-viral/26/11/?fbclid=IwAR3VRDxsWABDhT3YmBKhOMZYEfXPo1FvK8SgZDMPr1FBUXlg6G6y78yeSEs

[Innovindil]

We were told before the referendum there would be pretty much instant recession and now we're being told we'll still grow, just more slowly than predicted and we're supposed to what? Shake in fear? 

[Alf Bentley]

59 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

...yet in all likelihood it's going to happen, in one form or another. The route to it not happening, or to a 2nd referendum, is just too distant I feel.

 

I'm afraid, my partners in Remain, we just to have to face up to that. :/ 

 

The route to a 2nd referendum may have just got a bit shorter: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46371439/mcdonnell-on-may-facing-no-confidence-vote-and-new-referendum

 

There's a clear shift in McDonnell's words there. Like most of us, he assumes that May's deal will be voted down. Like most of us, he assumes that Labour's attempt to get their preferred deal or a general election via a confidence vote will fail.

But he is no longer strictly abiding by the script of Labour's conference policy - that a 2nd referendum will be "one option kept on the table". After the other options have failed, he now says a 2nd referendum is "inevitable" and "the option".

 

If the Labour leadership supported a 2nd referendum, it still might not win a parliamentary vote for one, but would certainly be close. The DUP would presumably oppose, other opposition parties would presumably support. The number of Tory MPs supporting a referendum is already in double figures, I think.....so long as there were about 10 more Tories supporting than there were Labour rebels opposing a referendum, there'd be a majority - and the speaker would surely find a means of having a vote if no other outcome had majority support and it looked as if a referendum did....

 

Of course, other events may intervene: the Tories may eventually get May's deal through or may promote an alternative deal (e.g. Norway); the ECJ may rule that revocation of Article 50 would need the EU's agreement - and even if the EU is likely to agree to that, it may impose conditions that would be unacceptable in the UK; the EU may refuse to extend the Article 50 deadline beyond March, making a 2nd referendum very difficult in practical terms. But a 2nd referendum is one of the likelier outcomes now, I think.

 

 

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't see why the Tories would go straight down the GE route - surely another leader and a different negotiation comes before a vote of no confidence in the whole government, wouldn't make any sense to call a second referendum for reasons I've already explained - a second GE would certainly be possible though.

Second point isn't true is it, just yesterday the lawyers for the EU said it couldn't be unilaterally revoked. - https://www.ft.com/content/502d22a6-f22d-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f

 

I agree that it's unlikely that the Tories would vote for a GE. But if they did it wouldn't require confidence vote, as I understand it. They could propose a motion calling for a general election. If this got 2/3 support in parliament (as it surely would - supported by most Labour and most Tory MPs), then a GE would happen, wouldn't it?

 

Another leader and a different negotiation is a distinct possibility - but would the latter have any chance of success with the EU? At this stage, they'd surely only accept an alternative that seemed good and simple from their perspective. A closer, Norway-type deal might be acceptable - but would surely be unacceptable to vast numbers of Tory MPs as it would entail freedom of movement. I suppose the EU might still consider a Canada-type deal....but only if some alternative to the backstop was miraculously discovered. 

 

On the ECJ case, we'll have to wait for the ruling, I suppose. Interesting that lawyers for the EU are saying that revocation cannot be unilateral. If the court agrees with them, I wonder what stance the EU27 would adopt? Oppose revocation, agree unconditionally or agree with conditions attached?

[hairy]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

Why do you trust the government forecasts given the recent record of them? Genuinely interested.

We get told never to trust the Tories yet as soon as they throw something out that suits we have to take is as gospel - it's very peculiar.

MattP, I do not believe the forecasts for the simple reason they are based on assumptions and not fact. Not even in the best of times do we see a forecast which proves to be right

 

I do not trust the Tories, or Labour, or Libs, or any of them but I must say i have been bitterly disappointed by the Tories in recent weeks. The infighting, backstabbing and struggles for power have been infuriating as the Country heads into the unknown. Surely if there was a time we needed them to lead it was now

 

I was suggesting your post had nothing more to it than "FAKE NEWS. NEXT!"

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Here's a decent read from Martin Howe QC about why this deal is so bad.
 

Quote

 

The most important point about the draft Brexit withdrawal agreement is that, once it is ratified, the United Kingdom will have no legal route out of it unless the EU agrees to let us out and replace it with another agreement. This makes it unique among trade treaties (including the EU’s), which always contain clauses allowing each party to withdraw on notice. Politicians who claim that this is just a bad treaty — one we can get out of later — are being ignorant or disingenuous.

 

Halfway through the 585-page document, we find Art. 185, which states a Northern Ireland Protocol ‘shall apply as from the end of the transition period’. Once the Protocol is in force, the UK cannot leave it except by ‘joint’ decision of the UK and the EU. This gives the EU a right of veto over the UK’s exit. In agreeing to this clause, the government has caved in over seeking a right to leave.

 

Indeed, the Protocol — which has become known as the ‘backstop’ — locks the whole UK into a customs union with the EU with no decision-making power. Annex 2 Art. 3(4) states that the UK shall be ‘informed’ of any decision by the EU to amend the Common Customs Tariff ‘in sufficient time for it to align itself with that decision’.

 

The EU has a huge (£95 billion) surplus in goods trade with the UK. This customs union gives the EU tariff-free access for its export goods into the UK market. It also forces the UK to maintain the EU’s high tariffs against competing goods from other countries. As one might expect, this is advantageous to EU exporters but catastrophically damaging to the UK. It prevents us from lowering tariffs if we want to in order to benefit our consumers. More importantly, it kills stone dead the possibility of forging trade deals with fast-growing economies around the world. They are not going to give us free trade in our services exports if we can’t offer concessions in return on their goods exports to us.

 

And since the EU can just sit back and force the UK into these terms by default, why on earth should it give us a better offer — namely the long-term trade deal that the government is banking on?

The government has negotiated a ‘political’ (i.e. not legally binding) declaration about the future relationship. This is thin gruel with only the barest outline of possible terms. Only three pages deal with trade. These talk of zero tariffs between the EU and UK, but notably omit any commitment by the EU that the deal would allow the UK to set its own external tariffs, as in a Canada-style Free Trade Agreement, or even under the Prime Minister’s Chequers dual tariff customs plan — which she has repeatedly claimed would allow the UK to conduct an independent trade policy.

 

On the contrary, the declaration states that there will be ‘customs arrangements that build on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement’. This means that the EU will not even be under a moral, still less legal, obligation to agree a trade deal which allows the UK to conduct its own future independent trade policy.

 

Art. 184 says that the EU and the UK shall use their ‘best endeavours’ to negotiate a trade agreement in time for the end of the transition. The Conservative party chairman claims that this is ‘a high legal bar’ for the EU. But an obligation to try to agree is completely non-justiciable: you cannot pin the blame on either party if each pursues its own interests and a deal is not reached.

 

So the EU can easily slow down the negotiations — or just not agree to the kind of deal the UK wants. The UK will then be forced into the so-called backstop. Not only would this mean a customs union and onerous ‘level-playing-field’ obligations binding the whole UK, but also the annexation of Northern Ireland into the EU for laws relating to goods, customs procedures and taxes. The list of EU laws which will continue to apply runs to 68 pages alone — and that’s just the titles. Neither the UK Parliament nor the Northern Ireland Assembly would have any say over these laws or over changes to them by the EU in future.

 

The ‘transition’ period would see most EU laws continuing to apply in the UK, enforced as now by the Commission and adjudicated by the ECJ. The difference will be that under Art. 7 the UK is excluded from ‘the nomination, appointment or election of members of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, as well as the participation in the decision-making and the attendance in the meetings of the institutions’. This is true vassalage, during which we will be required to abide by laws which we have no vote in shaping. There are no legally effective safeguards in the Agreement against the EU making changes to its laws which actively damage vital UK industries such as financial services.

 

The transition period was supposed to end in 2020, but the Prime Minister now envisages extending it to 2022. Art. 132 actually says that it can be extended up to ‘31 December 20XX’. The likely extension of the transition coupled with the very thin political declaration means that it could run indefinitely, prolonging the turmoil of the past 18 months and uncertainty about the future. During all this time we would be bound by EU law; our fishing industry subject to EU boats in our waters and quotas and rules imposed by Brussels.

 

The second big legal point about this draft treaty is that the European Court of Justice, whose influence Brexit was supposed to end, is given wide-ranging jurisdiction over the UK, not just during the ‘transition’ but afterwards as well. Once we leave the EU, the ECJ will cease to be a multi-national court in which the UK is a participating member and will become an entirely foreign court. So why should the ECJ’s writ still run? Sovereign states generally never agree to be bound by the courts of the other treaty party. This is dictated by legal protocol and common sense. Even the agreements between the EU and the tiny landlocked states of Andorra and San Marino contain conventional bilateral arbitration clauses.

 

But not this agreement. A supposedly neutral ‘arbitration panel’ has been set up to decide general disputes between the UK and EU. But under Art. 175, disputed questions of EU law will be decided not by the panel but by the ECJ — and the panel will be bound by the ECJ’s ruling. So the ‘independent’ panel will simply act as a postbox for sending the dispute to the ECJ. And as a rubber stamp when the answer comes back.

 

This vassalage that the UK government now seeks is rare, but not unheard of. It is the system imposed on the former Soviet republics of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine in their EU association agreements. What will the world make of Britain agreeing to such debasement? Carl Baudenbacher is a Swiss jurist who until recently was president of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States. He knows better than most how the EU system works and says, ‘This is not a real arbitration tribunal. Behind it, the ECJ decides everything. This is taken from the Ukraine agreement. It is absolutely unbelievable that a country like the UK, which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this.’

 

Why is the Prime Minister so desperate for a deal that she is willing to humiliate her country in this way? This draft agreement will not take us closer to an acceptable final deal with the EU. Instead, it locks us down by throwing away in advance our two strongest negotiation cards: EU budget payments of £39 billion and the future access to our market for EU goods.

 

At present, the EU treaties give us the right to withdraw on two years’ notice — a right we are currently exercising. But this new deal would lock us in with no right to leave at all, and destroy any benefits of the freedom of action which Brexit should give us. It would not let us forge our own trade policy with other parts of the world. It would not make our economy more competitive. It would not give us back control of our laws. This is not a bad deal. It is an atrocious deal.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

f the Labour leadership supported a 2nd referendum, it still might not win a parliamentary vote for one, but would certainly be close. The DUP would presumably oppose, other opposition parties would presumably support. The number of Tory MPs supporting a referendum is already in double figures, I think.....so long as there were about 10 more Tories supporting than there were Labour rebels opposing a referendum, there'd be a majority - and the speaker would surely find a means of having a vote if no other outcome had majority support and it looked as if a referendum did....

 

I agree that it's unlikely that the Tories would vote for a GE. But if they did it wouldn't require confidence vote, as I understand it. They could propose a motion calling for a general election. If this got 2/3 support in parliament (as it surely would - supported by most Labour and most Tory MPs), then a GE would happen, wouldn't it?

 

Another leader and a different negotiation is a distinct possibility - but would the latter have any chance of success with the EU? At this stage, they'd surely only accept an alternative that seemed good and simple from their perspective. A closer, Norway-type deal might be acceptable - but would surely be unacceptable to vast numbers of Tory MPs as it would entail freedom of movement. I suppose the EU might still consider a Canada-type deal....but only if some alternative to the backstop was miraculously discovered. 

 

On the ECJ case, we'll have to wait for the ruling, I suppose. Interesting that lawyers for the EU are saying that revocation cannot be unilateral. If the court agrees with them, I wonder what stance the EU27 would adopt? Oppose revocation, agree unconditionally or agree with conditions attached?

Bolded part - I'd hazard a guess that there are at least 20/25 Labour MP's that would defy the whip on that, people like Lisa Nandy and Graham Stringer might not be supporting the deal brought forward by May but they also wouldn't vote for a second referendum given their own beliefs or the Leave vote in their own area.

I just wish Labour would now be honest, it's about time they were, tell us whether you back a second referendum or not and then people can decide whether they still want to support you.

Agree on the GE analysis, that's why a GE for me is much more likely that a second referendum - the Tories can only really allow the former if someone else is in power while it happens, they can't be responsible for the fallout from it.

Edited 28 November 2018 by MattP

[FoxNotFox]

Personally speaking, at this stage I think I'd like to see an A50 extension, or a stop of the clock. The UK is in such disagreement over this that the fear of a deadline really ought not be a factor in the decision. And I say that even if remain is off the table, if it only enables the UK to decide which exit deal (or not) it wants.

 

That we are were we are is undoubtedly May's fault (for triggering A50 so quickly, for venturing into the unknown - on her own - without having taken a decent sounding of opinions, for the general tardiness) She picked up this ball and ran with it to her own interpretation of the rules, she has equally to carry the blame for it. The rest of the country shouldn't be punished for her singular drive.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

Personally speaking, at this stage I think I'd like to see an A50 extension, or a stop of the clock. The UK is in such disagreement over this that the fear of a deadline really ought not be a factor in the decision. And I say that even if remain is off the table, if it only enables the UK to decide which exit deal (or not) it wants.

 

That we are were we are is undoubtedly May's fault (for triggering A50 so quickly, for venturing into the unknown - on her own - without having taken a decent sounding of opinions, for the general tardiness) She picked up this ball and ran with it to her own interpretation of the rules, she has equally to carry the blame for it. The rest of the country shouldn't be punished for her singular drive.

I do agree with this, but it's so easy in hindsight - people were actually getting angry at how long it was taking her to do it in the aftermath of the referendum and she was receiving criticism from all sides. There were only a few moderate voices from either side saying that we should take our time and the EU itself was exerting some pressure from memory.

Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn wanted it triggered the day after we voted to leave which tells you all you need to know about what their judgement would be like in any sort of position of power.

It meant we would have left five months ago, let that sink in.

Edited 28 November 2018 by MattP

[Buce]

52 minutes ago, MattP said:

Bolded part - I'd hazard a guess that there are at least 20/25 Labour MP's that would defy the whip on that, people like Lisa Nandy and Graham Stringer might not be supporting the deal brought forward by May but they also wouldn't vote for a second referendum given their own beliefs or the Leave vote in their own area.

I just wish Labour would now be honest, it's about time they were, tell us whether you back a second referendum or not and then people can decide whether they still want to support you.

Agree on the GE analysis, that's why a GE for me is much more likely that a second referendum - the Tories can only really allow the former if someone else is in power while it happens, they can't be responsible for the fallout from it.

 

 

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has suggested it is “inevitable” that Labour will back a second referendum if Theresa May’s Brexit deal is defeated in the Commons but the party is unable to force a general election. McDonnell told the BBC:

'We want a deal that will protect jobs and the economy. If we can’t achieve that - the government can’t achieve that - we should have a general election but that’s very difficult to do because of the nature of the legislation that David Cameron brought forward.

If that’s not possible, we’ll be calling upon the government then to join us in a public vote. It’s difficult to judge each stage, but that’s the sequence I think that we’ll inevitably go through over this period.'

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg asked the shadow chancellor: “It is inevitable that if a vote of no confidence didn’t bring down the government and a general election, it is inevitable - to use that word that you just used - that there’d be another vote?” McDonnell replied

'That’s right. Our policy is if we can’t get a general election, then the other option which we’ve kept on the table is a people’s vote.'

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has suggested it is “inevitable” that Labour will back a second referendum if Theresa May’s Brexit deal is defeated in the Commons but the party is unable to force a general election. McDonnell told the BBC:

'We want a deal that will protect jobs and the economy. If we can’t achieve that - the government can’t achieve that - we should have a general election but that’s very difficult to do because of the nature of the legislation that David Cameron brought forward.

If that’s not possible, we’ll be calling upon the government then to join us in a public vote. It’s difficult to judge each stage, but that’s the sequence I think that we’ll inevitably go through over this period.'

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg asked the shadow chancellor: “It is inevitable that if a vote of no confidence didn’t bring down the government and a general election, it is inevitable - to use that word that you just used - that there’d be another vote?” McDonnell replied

'That’s right. Our policy is if we can’t get a general election, then the other option which we’ve kept on the table is a people’s vote.'

It's interesting McDonnell is prepared to go far further on this than Corbyn, he said last weekend on Ridge it wasn't an option for the time. is Mac positioning himself for a shot at the top job?

Quite obvious what the tactics from the Tories should be though in the case of impasse, deny them the GE, let Labour then come out for the second referendum, then give them the GE after they have done so.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I won't be, this thread has turned a bit shit now, bit like the Trump thread, no real debate, too much groupthink, copies/pastes and the odd insult - fortunately I'm a busy man so don't have much time anyway. All I asked was for your source that the EU have said they will revoke Article 50 - the article I have posted there from the FT yesterday says otherwise.

I'm not backing May's Brexit deal at all as it is worse than staying in the EU - to get the benefits of Brexit and connect with the emerging markets and economies you do need a clean break from the SM and CU - then we have the moral aspect of Brexit which ensures we leave things like the ECJ and the European Arrest Warrant, which we appear now to have no intention of despite it having been responsible for citizens of our country being escorted to foreign jails often on flimsy evidence, here's a summary of it from the Guardian - what pains me about this is wee America doing the same the defenders of it would be up in arms over the situation -  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/05/extradition-european-arrest-warrants

Read the case of Andrew Symeou for a more recent example, although in reality we've come to this because we can't find a technological solution to the Irish border, around the same time the US has managed to land a robot on Mars - that depresses me no end.

4

I'd like to see more debate and back-and-forth on the Trump thread tbh - surely there's stuff going on with him that could generate a difference of opinion that would be worth debating?

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Bolded part - I'd hazard a guess that there are at least 20/25 Labour MP's that would defy the whip on that, people like Lisa Nandy and Graham Stringer might not be supporting the deal brought forward by May but they also wouldn't vote for a second referendum given their own beliefs or the Leave vote in their own area.

I just wish Labour would now be honest, it's about time they were, tell us whether you back a second referendum or not and then people can decide whether they still want to support you.

Agree on the GE analysis, that's why a GE for me is much more likely that a second referendum - the Tories can only really allow the former if someone else is in power while it happens, they can't be responsible for the fallout from it.

 

You might be right about the number of Labour MPs who would oppose a 2nd referendum, I've no idea. But the issue then would be how many Tory MPs would support a 2nd referendum rather than potentially risk No Deal or a general election (assuming May's deal is terminally defeated and no renegotiated deal is viable). It's quite possible that there would still be insufficient votes for parliament to support a 2nd referendum, but it would be close at the very least. Even assuming your figures re. Labour MPs are correct, voting for a 2nd referendum you potentially have: Lab 240 + LD/SNP/Plaid/Green/Ind Unionist 53 = 293. Assuming Sinn Fein abstain, the winning post is about 321.....so 28 Tory rebels could be enough, less if fewer Labourites rebel.

 

That might not happen. Bottom line, though: something that seems highly unlikely IS going to happen. For different reasons, May's deal, a renegotiated deal, No Deal, 2nd referendum or general election ALL seem unlikely. Yet unless some other option appears, one of them WILL happen.

 

Inconvenient as it may be for their opponents, there's an absolute strategic logic to Labour's stance: staying on the fence for so long, then potentially backing a 2nd referendum at the last minute, after all other options have been rejected. I assume that is what McDonnell was doing with his comments that Buce and I have quoted - and I've long assumed that McDonnell, not Corbyn, is the dominant figure when it comes to strategy, though if we do end up with a 2nd referendum Starmer will have played an absolute blinder, too, as (I presume) a genuine Remainer, unlike Corbyn - or probably McDonnell, though he has more of a strategic sense of "achieving the possible" than Corbyn with his right-on list of "morally righteous" priorities.

 

If a 2nd referendum were to be called by parliament (the Opposition plus sufficient Tory rebels), the Tory party/govt would not be responsible for the fallout as they'd have opposed it. Meanwhile, Labour would be able to argue with their Leave supporters that the deal on offer was disastrous (true), No Deal would be disastrous (true), and that the people could decide to continue with Brexit if they wanted, while Labour would presumably argue for remaining in an "EU that needs major reform" in the absence of any acceptable alternatives.....thereby satisfying most of their members, voters and MPs who are Remain supporters anyway. Thus, a 2nd referendum without an election is a possibility, I think, though one of the other, equally "unlikely" paths might win the day. Btw, I'd be pretty apprehensive, even if this does happen. There's a distinct chance of things getting toxic, even violent - though that could happen under any scenario. There's also a distinct chance of the public not voting Remain, but instead voting No Deal (little chance of May's deal winning, I'd guess).

 

An oddity that occurred to me: of all the UK political parties, there is only 1 party that is expressing (cautious) support for May's deal.................Sinn Fein!

What odds on that at the outset?! 

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

You might be right about the number of Labour MPs who would oppose a 2nd referendum, I've no idea. But the issue then would be how many Tory MPs would support a 2nd referendum rather than potentially risk No Deal or a general election (assuming May's deal is terminally defeated and no renegotiated deal is viable). It's quite possible that there would still be insufficient votes for parliament to support a 2nd referendum, but it would be close at the very least. Even assuming your figures re. Labour MPs are correct, voting for a 2nd referendum you potentially have: Lab 240 + LD/SNP/Plaid/Green/Ind Unionist 53 = 293. Assuming Sinn Fein abstain, the winning post is about 321.....so 28 Tory rebels could be enough, less if fewer Labourites rebel.

 

That might not happen. Bottom line, though: something that seems highly unlikely IS going to happen. For different reasons, May's deal, a renegotiated deal, No Deal, 2nd referendum or general election ALL seem unlikely. Yet unless some other option appears, one of them WILL happen.

 

Inconvenient as it may be for their opponents, there's an absolute strategic logic to Labour's stance: staying on the fence for so long, then potentially backing a 2nd referendum at the last minute, after all other options have been rejected. I assume that is what McDonnell was doing with his comments that Buce and I have quoted - and I've long assumed that McDonnell, not Corbyn, is the dominant figure when it comes to strategy, though if we do end up with a 2nd referendum Starmer will have played an absolute blinder, too, as (I presume) a genuine Remainer, unlike Corbyn - or probably McDonnell, though he has more of a strategic sense of "achieving the possible" than Corbyn with his right-on list of "morally righteous" priorities.

 

If a 2nd referendum were to be called by parliament (the Opposition plus sufficient Tory rebels), the Tory party/govt would not be responsible for the fallout as they'd have opposed it. Meanwhile, Labour would be able to argue with their Leave supporters that the deal on offer was disastrous (true), No Deal would be disastrous (true), and that the people could decide to continue with Brexit if they wanted, while Labour would presumably argue for remaining in an "EU that needs major reform" in the absence of any acceptable alternatives.....thereby satisfying most of their members, voters and MPs who are Remain supporters anyway. Thus, a 2nd referendum without an election is a possibility, I think, though one of the other, equally "unlikely" paths might win the day. Btw, I'd be pretty apprehensive, even if this does happen. There's a distinct chance of things getting toxic, even violent - though that could happen under any scenario. There's also a distinct chance of the public not voting Remain, but instead voting No Deal (little chance of May's deal winning, I'd guess).

 

An oddity that occurred to me: of all the UK political parties, there is only 1 party that is expressing (cautious) support for May's deal.................Sinn Fein!

What odds on that at the outset?! 

The last part there tells you all you need to know about the deal to be honest, especially when it comes to Northern Ireland. 

 

If the Tories lost a motion like the one you mentioned on the back of vote I'd fully expect the whip to be withdrawn from them so I think it would have to cause another election as the government would have no effective majority - or I think Labour could even try and form a government with them as per the constitution states. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue when attempting to crush the central part of the government policy it has been (and they had been) elected on.

 

At this point in time a second referendum doesn't even solve anything anyway, if a leave vote comes back a second time it still doesn't get a deal through parliament so what's the point?

 

Does it then go to another referendum where we choose between No Deal, May's Deal or Norway and Canada? If so we'll probably need a GE with it as well. Not that I would trust any of the MP's to respect it anyway, it would be no more binding than the first vote.

 

On the subject of parliamentary arithmetic the Spectator has her losing on the deal by about 150 - which is so ridiculous I'm almost cynical about the whole thing.

[Buce]

Bank of England says no-deal Brexit would be worse than 2008 crisis

Bank warns of immediate economic crash, GDP to fall by 8%, unemployment to rise to 7.5%

 

Britain crashing out of the European Union without a deal would trigger a deep and damaging recession with worse consequences for the UK economy than the 2008 financial crisis, the Bank of England has warned.

Raising the stakes as Theresa May battles to win support in parliament for her Brexit deal, the central bank said that failure to reach a deal with Brussels – with no transition period to a new trading relationship – would spark an immediate economic crash.

GDP would fall by as much as 8% next year, exceeding the depth of the recession that followed the financial crisis in one of the worst-ever peacetime capitulations for the economy.

 

House prices would fall by 30% and the unemployment rate would increase from its current level of 4.1% to about 7.5%, while interest rates would be forced to rise as inflation increased to 6.5%.

In sharp contrast, the Bank said May’s Brexit deal had the potential to encourage a bounce for economic growth over the next five years, relative to its current forecast, although only if Britain maintains the closest possible trading ties with the EU.

In the event ministers agree a close economic partnership with Brussels of the kind advocated by the prime minister, the best-case scenario would see GDP rise by as much as 1.75% over the next five years.

It said a “less close” economic partnership, with customs checks on UK-EU trade but without a hard border in Northern Ireland, would cause the economy to shrink by about 0.75% over the same period.

The Bank warned that both scenarios were not definite forecasts and relied on it making assumptions on Brexit decisions that had not yet been made or agreed with the EU.

It also did not model the potential outcome of Britain falling back on to the Northern Ireland “backstop” arrangement after the transition period, even though that was a possibility.

All of the outcomes are still worse than if Britain had voted to stay in the EU two years ago, with the Bank estimating that GDP starts all of its scenarios about 1% lower than it would had there been a vote for remain.

In making its assessment, the Bank said the consequences of a no-deal scenario would be particularly severe because the majority of UK companies have made no preparations for Britain leaving the EU without a transition period or plan for a new economic partnership.

While the worst-case scenario is extreme, it is likely to raise eyebrows because it includes the Bank raising interest rates as high as 5.5% – something which many economists doubt would happen because it would amplify the damaging effects of a no-deal Brexit.

However, the Bank has said it might be forced to raise rates to maintain its remit set by parliament to keep inflation low.

It said a no-deal Brexit would cause a sharp supply shock to the British economy that would lead to demand for goods and services exceeding supply, pushing up the rate of inflation, which it would need to tackle by raising rates.

[FoxNotFox]

24 minutes ago, MattP said:

At this point in time a second referendum doesn't even solve anything anyway, if a leave vote comes back a second time it still doesn't get a deal through parliament so what's the point?

I was going mention the same earlier but decided not to as it was an 'if' on an 'if'. One step at a time, it's not even certain how the first 'if' could come about! But yes, a 2nd leave vote means the ball being batted back and forth again. This really is a mess of a situation!

[Alf Bentley]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

The last part there tells you all you need to know about the deal to be honest, especially when it comes to Northern Ireland. 

 

If the Tories lost a motion like the one you mentioned on the back of vote I'd fully expect the whip to be withdrawn from them so I think it would have to cause another election as the government would have no effective majority - or I think Labour could even try and form a government with them as per the constitution states. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue when attempting to crush the central part of the government policy it has been (and they had been) elected on.

 

At this point in time a second referendum doesn't even solve anything anyway, if a leave vote comes back a second time it still doesn't get a deal through parliament so what's the point?

 

Does it then go to another referendum where we choose between No Deal, May's Deal or Norway and Canada? If so we'll probably need a GE with it as well. Not that I would trust any of the MP's to respect it anyway, it would be no more binding than the first vote.

 

On the subject of parliamentary arithmetic the Spectator has her losing on the deal by about 150 - which is so ridiculous I'm almost cynical about the whole thing.

 

Although they'd have preferred Remain, there's a logic to Sinn Fein cautiously welcoming May's deal - sensible heads, not just radical Republican hotheads. Either an election or a referendum in the current context would bring a particularly high risk of violence in N. Ireland, I imagine. May's deal avoids a hard border and does comparatively little damage to the economy of Ireland. Indeed, as Prof. Michael Dougan (EU Law expert) has pointed out, economically it is potentially a very good deal for N. Ireland if the backstop ever comes into force as N. Ireland would have a privileged position within the UK, inside the SM & CU, gaining a competitive advantage on Scotland, in particular (hence some of the anger from Sturgeon & Scots Tories). I don't imagine that Sinn Fein were anticipating an attempt to reunite Ireland immediately. They'll have an eye on that happening in the medium-term, and May's deal might bring it slightly closer, but I doubt they'd welcome it coming to a head immediately - likewise the Irish Republic.

 

The ever ill-defined Brexit was a central part of govt policy, but a vassal state deal wasn't and neither was No Deal, so would rebels really be betraying govt policy (unless a renegotiated policy is magicked from somewhere)? It might lead to an election, but I don't see that as inevitable. There would still have to be either a 2/3 vote for an election or a successful no-confidence vote. Tory rebels could vote for a referendum without voting "no confidence" - though I suppose the Govt could collapse and hand over to a minority Corbyn-led govt, which might call for an election if it couldn't get a majority or might be supported by the rebels for just long enough to get the referendum stages? Bloody complicated, all the potential scenarios....

 

Any referendum would probably require an Article 50 extension. If there was a Leave vote again, it would presumably be for either May's Deal or for No Deal, not just "Leave" like last time. No Deal is the default option and May's Deal is agreed by the EU and includes a transition, so I don't see the problem there. If that happened, I presume Parliament would proceed to ratify the referendum result without it causing any further delay beyond any agreed Article 50 extension.

Edited 28 November 2018 by Alf Bentley

[FoxNotFox]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If there was a Leave vote again, it would presumably be for either May's Deal or for No Deal, not just "Leave" like last time. 

I'm going seriously into conjecture here but whatever....

 

It depends on the question/questions asked if any 2nd referendum comes about but what if there's another mandate for leave but no clear preference as to which way (say a dead heat with 30% no deal, 30% May's deal, and 40% remain) How on earth do you interpret that?

 

I think @MattP is right to suggest it doesn't get you any further. Should we get to a 2nd referendum, one has to be prepared for any outcome - even one that potentially makes matters no clearer.

[Dr The Singh]

Just agree the May deal, 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

I'm going seriously into conjecture here but whatever....

 

It depends on the question/questions asked if any 2nd referendum comes about but what if there's another mandate for leave but no clear preference as to which way (say a dead heat with 30% no deal, 30% May's deal, and 40% remain) How on earth do you interpret that?

 

I think @MattP is right to suggest it doesn't get you any further. Should we get to a 2nd referendum, one has to be prepared for any outcome - even one that potentially makes matters no clearer.

 

 

We certainly have to be prepared for any outcome - a very serious and complicated crisis whose outcome it is hard to predict.

 

But I cannot imagine the referendum being set up to be indecisive in the way you suggest. However it is organised, I assume that the winning outcome would have to get more than 50% support.

The suggestions I've heard are:

- A two-stage vote on a single ballot paper (Leave/Remain, then a choice of Leave options for if that wins: e.g. May's Deal, No Deal)

- A single vote by single transferable vote between No Deal, May's Deal & Remain. That way, people would vote 1, 2 for their preferred & 2nd choice options. If no option got more than 50%, the lowest-ranked option would be eliminated and its votes transferred to the 2 remaining: e.g. if May's Deal got least votes, those who had voted for it would have their votes transferred to No Deal or Remain, as they'd specified, so that one option had more than 50%

 

Given the numbers voting, the chances of a tie are tiny - and could have applied to the first referendum, too, in theory. I presume there's a tie-break solution (leading campaigners taking penalties? ). But with 30-40 million voting, little chance of that.

[FoxNotFox]

I think I've said before but I could see a transferable vote being used, though one can't see remainers wanting to make a 2nd choice!