Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

The status quo has not been rejected against any particular flavour of Brexit, merely against an undeliverable poly-anna-ish view of Brexit as whatever you wish it to be.

Once there is an agreed deal (or ever no deal, i.e. WTO hard Brexit) then that actual and deliverable (rather than fantasy and undeliverable) Brexit should require a democratic mandate against the status quo. How else are you going to be sure that a majority supports the actual Brexit settlement. On a wider issue, why are you suddenly so scared of the democratic process. I thought you Brexiters were all in favour of the people deciding, which they demonstrably haven't on an actual Brexit deal.

What happens if the deal is rejected? Do they negotiate another deal and then have a referendum on that? What if the EU just say that's the deal, off you go?

Referendums only really work on a simple yes no basis. Deals aren't like that so having referendum on the specifics here just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

What happens if the deal is rejected? Do they negotiate another deal and then have a referendum on that? What if the EU just say that's the deal, off you go?

Referendums only really work on a simple yes no basis. Deals aren't like that so having referendum on the specifics here just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.

Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.

Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.

I don't see an easy way of making such decisions without referendums though since elections are not single issue decisions and since we have fptp to deal with. I think the problem is much wider than just whether the referendum is valid. We need to have proper PR so that govts are not based on minority voting. For any specific constitutional changes, we should have a definition of what  requires referendums, and any change from the status quo needs a minimum turnout and a voting threshold.

However, since we won't get that, and since we have had the first referendum, the idea of a second one on the deal is a non starter in terms of its feasibility.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see an easy way of making such decisions without referendums though since elections are not single issue decisions and since we have fptp to deal with. I think the problem is much wider than just whether the referendum is valid. We need to have proper PR so that govts are not based on minority voting. For any specific constitutional changes, we should have a definition of what  requires referendums, and any change from the status quo needs a minimum turnout and a voting threshold.

There is a role for referendums, but they should only happen when there are explicitly clear alternative options, either of which are deliverable.

So good examples are the FPTP vs AV voting referendum - each was a clear option and the government was able to deliver either one. Likewise the London mayor, the creation of Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly. In every case all the discussion on detail had happened in advance and the final agreed and deliverable options were put to the people in a referendum.

The two unsafe examples are the IndyRef, where there was massive uncertainty over what independence would look like, so no clear option and also the Scottish government had no power to deliver some of its stated aspirations, e.g. using the £, remaining in the EU etc. Likewise the EU referendum where the nature of Breixt was (and remains) completely unclear plus again the stated aspirations (e.g. control of immigration, getting trade deals, being in single market etc) are not under the control of the UK government.

In those circumstances (and I said this on the IndyRef as well as the EU ref) you should have a two stage approach with 2 referendums. First a referendum to give a mandate to negotiate an agreement (e.g. on what independence would be like, or an agreed Brexit settlement between the UK and the EU), with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Then a second (and it could be binding) referendum where that clear and deliverable deal is put to the electorate in a referendum against the status quo. Only in that way can you be sure that there is a mandate for the actual deal on Independence or Brexit.

However, since we won't get that, and since we have had the first referendum, the idea of a second one on the deal is a non starter in terms of its feasibility.

See above - the idea of a second referendum is not a non starter - and certainly if the economic situation deteriorates and public opinion swings against as people begin to realise that the kind of Brexit on offer isn't the kind they envisaged, or wanted, then I think there may be a serious clamour for a second (possible binding) referendum on the agreed deal in, let's say 2019.

If the public haven't changed their mind then there is nothing lost and the deal is securely mandated. If the public have changed their mind how can it be safe to proceed with the most monumental decision the UK has faced for decades against public opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

No, the idea of the two referendums is a non starter  both politically and practically. Politically because any second referendum would be seen as making the first clear decision void on the basis of a technicality. Practically because it just locks you into a possible permanent state of negotiation.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the idea of the two referendums is a non starter  both politically and practically. Politically because any second referendum would be seen as making the first clear decision void on the basis of a technicality.

You may be correct that it won't happen in practice but it certainly isn't a non starter.

And a democratic mandate is only valid until or unless a more recent mandate over-rules it. This is completely accepted democratically - the 2020 general election won't make the 2015 general election void - nope it will provide a more recent and therefore more relevant mandate.

And given that the recent referendum was advisory it would be perfectly reasonably and both constitutionally/democratically sound for the government to say 'thanks electorate, we have heard your advise and we will now negotiate an agreed Brexit deal. We will come back to you once that is sorted to obtain a democratic mandate on its implementation'. What's the problem with that. If in 2019 the public decide they don't like the actual Brexit deal and would prefer to remain, do you really think it would be safe democratically to leave when the public didn't support. To my mind a mandate some 3 years earlier on a vague notion of what Brexit might be (spun to include all the nice bits but non of the nasty bits) isn't safe as a mandate for an actual and deliverable deal at the point when it will be delivered.

For crying out load we often allow a 14 day 'cooling off' period on all sorts of deals, even when the exact terms and conditions are clearly stated at the point the deal is taken out.

I suspect this has a long long way to run - 3 years is a long time in politics and I wouldn't want to predict what the public mood will be in 2019.

[Nearly Sane]

But the two votes you are proposing are, as you know, about different things. Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit. So a vote against the deal would not be a vote against Brexit, it would be a vote for a different deal, and it's not clear that any such thing could happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the two votes you are proposing are, as you know, about different things. Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit. So a vote against the deal would not be a vote against Brexit, it would be a vote for a different deal, and it's not clear that any such thing could happen.

Of course there might be people who voted for Brexit in theory (for example someone who's red line is maintaining single market) but vote against an actual Breixt deal that has hard Brexit. Likewise, our own JK might not support a Norway style Brexit as that isn't what he thinks Brexit should be. And there may be remainers who would be comfortable with a Norway style deal but voted remain as there was the possibility of hard Brexit.

Why is that a problem - if it means we get a mandate for the actual deal then surely that is the safest democratic approach. Currently we seem to be heading down a hard Brexit route and I'm struggling to see how there is any democratic mandate for that whatsoever, given that the 48% clearly wouldn't support and of the 52% are you really suggesting that less than 2% wanted soft Brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a problem because you are equating voting on the specific with the voting on the general. It also means that you think that the 48% stay remain, no matter what. I would suggest that there could well be a fair amount of people voting for a deal, if it included a Norway style deal, who would have voted Remain in order to get the thing out of the way.


I'm not suggesting % either way on what people wanted. I also don't see what motivation there would be for the EU to take part in a long process of negotiation if at the  end of it, you were to suggest it was all pointless.

[ProfessorDavey]

Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit.

Indeed, and here is an analogy.

We had a referendum (a binding one with 2 clear and deliverable options) offering for general elections to remain conducted via first past the post or by alternative voting. There were plenty of people who don't like FPTP, yet voted for it because they found it preferable to the alternative on offer, AV, although their preference might have been a more pure proportional representation. But PR wasn't on the ballot paper.

So had their been an equivalent 'vague' referendum to the EU one - in other words asking whether we wanted to retain FPTP or to stop using FPTP those against FPTP would be a broad church, potentially supporting a range of alternative voting approaches, but of course you can only have one. So there would have been plenty of people who would have voted against FPTP (when there wasn't a clearly defined alternative on offer) but once that alternative is offered, AV vs FPTP would prefer FPTP.

[Nearly Sane]

Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.

[Nearly Sane]

Not entirely sure this is worth the candle, suspect it is in order to be seen to be doing something.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

[ProfessorDavey]

Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.

I never said it was - but currently we don't know, hence the need (in my view) to ask at the point where we have 2 clear and deliverable options on the table, which wasn't the case last June.

Why is that such a problem. Brexit will be holed below the waterline if in 2019 it becomes apparent that there is no majority in favour of the particular flavour of Brexit on offer. And anyhow there will be a more recent (albeit not specific) mandate in 2020 when the next general election takes place. So there could, quite plausibly, be a victory for a coalition of Labour (post Corbyn), LibDems and SNP all fighting the remain corner. It would be very easy for them to dismiss and roll back a vote on non specifics (i.e. no actual Brexit deal) in a vote some 4 years earlier, given they'd have the most recent mandate. Much harder to see off a more recent (2019) vote on an actual deal.

But the key point remains - this is the most important thing to happen to the UK in years, surely we should get it right and be certain there is a majority in favour for the actual deal. Why is that so hard for you to accept.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a problem because you are equating voting on the specific with the voting on the general.

But that's one of the huge problems with the EU referendum - to offered the specific on one side (remaining in the EU) with the general on the other, not remaining in the EU but with no clarity on what that meant.

It also means that you think that the 48% stay remain, no matter what. I would suggest that there could well be a fair amount of people voting for a deal, if it included a Norway style deal, who would have voted Remain in order to get the thing out of the way.

No I didn't - I clear said that there may be remainers who might vote for Norway style Brexit, but voted remain for fear of hard Brexit.

But unless you actually look for a mandate on the agreed deal you will never know whether there actually is majority public support for the actually Brexit we will be offered.

I'm not suggesting % either way on what people wanted. I also don't see what motivation there would be for the EU to take part in a long process of negotiation if at the  end of it, you were to suggest it was all pointless.

The EU has done this plenty of times before, albeit without the stakes being so high. Why not this time - I suspect that the EU would actually be more minded to engage constructively in negotiations if there was a possibility that the UK might choose at the end of the day to remain.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said it was - but currently we don't know, hence the need (in my view) to ask at the point where we have 2 clear and deliverable options on the table, which wasn't the case last June.

Why is that such a problem. Brexit will be holed below the waterline if in 2019 it becomes apparent that there is no majority in favour of the particular flavour of Brexit on offer. And anyhow there will be a more recent (albeit not specific) mandate in 2020 when the next general election takes place. So there could, quite plausibly, be a victory for a coalition of Labour (post Corbyn), LibDems and SNP all fighting the remain corner. It would be very easy for them to dismiss and roll back a vote on non specifics (i.e. no actual Brexit deal) in a vote some 4 years earlier, given they'd have the most recent mandate. Much harder to see off a more recent (2019) vote on an actual deal.

But the key point remains - this is the most important thing to happen to the UK in years, surely we should get it right and be certain there is a majority in favour for the actual deal. Why is that so hard for you to accept.

Because I don't think it is politically practical. Any attempt to do this will look like a refusal to accept the vote - which is fine for some parties, SNP and Lib Dems, though even there there will be issues, particularly for the SNP. But more importantly, the current UK govt are committed to doing this now. The only way to get a referendum would be to defeat them now, and then a quick general election and you are looking at 5 years for the Tories to run with it with a much bigger majority.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because I don't think it is politically practical. Any attempt to do this will look like a refusal to accept the vote

More democracy is always better - or is that only the case unless there is a chance that the people mightn't agree with you.

It isn't really a hard sell to say to people they will be given the final say on an actual deal. Even make it a binding referendum, as was the case in FPTP vs AV.

And it won't be not accepting the vote, because the vote will have triggered negotiations and an actual proposed Brexit deal (none of which would have happened had their been a remain vote in June) - all that would be being asked is to be confident that leaving the EU is firstly the clear and settled view of the UK people and secondly that the real Brexit deal (rather than a whole raft of hypothetical and often conflicting and unachievable deals as was the case in June) actually has the support of the people.

Why are you all of a sudden so against democracy NS?

- which is fine for some parties, SNP and Lib Dems, though even there there will be issues, particularly for the SNP. But more importantly, the current UK govt are committed to doing this now. The only way to get a referendum would be to defeat them now, and then a quick general election and you are looking at 5 years for the Tories to run with it with a much bigger majority.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next general election (even if held in May 2020) occurs before the point at which we actually leave the EU. Therefore that general election will become fundamentally on the actual Brexit deal, rather than Brexit in a theoretical sense.

I suspect even if A50 is triggered in the Spring that 2 years will not be enough time to sort out the huge, huge range of issues and it is certainly not in the UKs interests to be forced into a tight timetable because that will only diminish what can be achieved. A50 allows for extensions and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the UK clamouring for an extension, given that otherwise we'd to thrown to the wolves on the least favourable WTO terms.

[Gordon]

Looks like our First Minister is to get more involved in the legal aspects.

I hope that via democratic means she can put a spanner in the works, since that she is able to do so would surely be further confirmation that Brexit as it stands is an utter shambles, where those responsible for implementing it are exposed as clueless if they didn't plan for the outcome of possible legal interventions.

If nothing else perhaps it will encourage someone to come up with a plan of sorts: at the minute the plan seems to be to say 'Brexit means Brexit' repeatedly and hope that nobody ever gets to know what is actually involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299

[Nearly Sane]

More democracy is always better - or is that only the case unless there is a chance that the people mightn't agree with you.

It isn't really a hard sell to say to people they will be given the final say on an actual deal. Even make it a binding referendum, as was the case in FPTP vs AV.

And it won't be not accepting the vote, because the vote will have triggered negotiations and an actual proposed Brexit deal (none of which would have happened had their been a remain vote in June) - all that would be being asked is to be confident that leaving the EU is firstly the clear and settled view of the UK people and secondly that the real Brexit deal (rather than a whole raft of hypothetical and often conflicting and unachievable deals as was the case in June) actually has the support of the people.

Why are you all of a sudden so against democracy NS?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next general election (even if held in May 2020) occurs before the point at which we actually leave the EU. Therefore that general election will become fundamentally on the actual Brexit deal, rather than Brexit in a theoretical sense.

I suspect even if A50 is triggered in the Spring that 2 years will not be enough time to sort out the huge, huge range of issues and it is certainly not in the UKs interests to be forced into a tight timetable because that will only diminish what can be achieved. A50 allows for extensions and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the UK clamouring for an extension, given that otherwise we'd to thrown to the wolves on the least favourable WTO terms.

Who says thinking about what is practical in political terns is being against democracy? Or that I'm trying to stop  a vote because it wouldn't be in favour of what I wanted? You need to stop with the strawman personal comments on topics like this. I voted Remain, I campaigned for Remain.

That you would like a second referendum is fine but it doesn't deal with the practicalities here.

[ProfessorDavey]

That you would like a second referendum is fine but it doesn't deal with the practicalities here.

I'm sorry I fail to see what the practicalities I am not dealing with are. Sure I understand that politically this is currently unlikely, but that is different to practicalities. There is no practical block to a referendum in say 2019 or even 2020 which deals with a related, but distinct question to the one in 2016 (i.e. a real deal rather than a hypothetical Brexit) and also is different in that it is binding rather than advisory.

And even on the politics, even if the Tories are in power they might realise that a second referendum may be practically essential and politically smart. Certainly if the courts rule that parliament must be involved at the key steps, May might prefer the belt and braces of a final binding referendum on an agreed deal compared to the possibility that parliament might vote down what it perceives to be a poor deal on the table in 2019, particularly if the economy is in poor shape and public opinion has moved decisively against Brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry I fail to see what the practicalities I am not dealing with are. Sure I understand that political this is currently unlikely, but that is different to practicalities. There is no practical block with a referendum in say 2019 or even 2020 which deals with a related, but distinct question to the one in 2016 and also is different in that it is binding rather than advisory.

And even on the politics, even if the Tories are in power they might realise that a second referendum may be practically essential and politically smart. Certainly if the courts rule that parliament must be involved at the key steps, May might prefer the belt and braces of a final binding referendum on an agreed deal compared to the possibility that parliament might vote down what it perceives to be a poor deal on the table in 2019, particularly if the economy is in poor shape and public opinion has moved decisively against Brexit.

the politics are the practicalities here. That's what makes a second referendum unlikely. The reason Brexit won is because people feel adrift from the political process. The idea of a second referendum which was not part of the manifesto will increase that. The Tories would split if such a thing were to be become likely.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who says thinking about what is practical in political terns is being against democracy? Or that I'm trying to stop  a vote because it wouldn't be in favour of what I wanted? You need to stop with the strawman personal comments on topics like this. I voted Remain, I campaigned for Remain.

Point taken, although this doesn't address why a second referendum is impractical as you seem to think it to be.

[Nearly Sane]

Article underlining the issues on trade deals

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/07/india-shows-the-ultimate-failure-of-the-brexit-project

[Jack Knave]

Nothing to do with legality - as you said yourself, all to do with intention

So,
.....you believed a politician?
Are you really that stupid?

Mine is an argument of logic not a position of belief.

[Jack Knave]

The status quo has not been rejected against any particular flavour of Brexit, merely against an undeliverable poly-anna-ish view of Brexit as whatever you wish it to be.

Once there is an agreed deal (or ever no deal, i.e. WTO hard Brexit) then that actual and deliverable (rather than fantasy and undeliverable) Brexit should require a democratic mandate against the status quo. How else are you going to be sure that a majority supports the actual Brexit settlement. On a wider issue, why are you suddenly so scared of the democratic process. I thought you Brexiters were all in favour of the people deciding, which they demonstrably haven't on an actual Brexit deal.

Quit obviously you can't read yet. What did it say on the ballot paper? You may need to ask someone this. Then make a note that is was rejected, that people voted to leave.

[Jack Knave]

And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.

Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.

After 2 years that's it, regardless, unless everyone agrees to carry on.