Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the idea that Bremain as you portray it as consistent is untrue. You seem to be judging the two choices in the last referendum as two entirely different things. Yes, there was division amongst the Leavers but there was too amongst the Stayers, some who wanted a wholesale reform of the EU,some who saw it as merely a 7/10 and only marginally better than Leave.

I disagree - for remainers they know what being in the EU looks like and (regardless of their reservations) they preferred that 'known' to being outside of the EU. That hasn't changed.

While there were of course difference of opinion amongst remain voters they know what it was that they were voting to stay in. On the leaver side there were people voting on the basis of what they thought brexit would be like - despite the fact that they had no idea and one person's view (e.g. Daniel Hannon) would be completely incompatible with another's view (e.g. Nigel Farage).

Use this as an analogy. Imagine someone asks you whether you'd like chocolate mouse for pudding or ice cream in a restaurant. Now if you choose chocolate mouse you know exactly what you are getting and have indeed eaten it in that restaurant many times before. By contrast no-one will tell what flavour of ice cream until you've made the choice, but kind of pretend it is whatever flavour you'd like. But when you choose ice cream you discover that there is only one flavour possible. And when it is revealed as vanilla, many people realise that that's not what they wanted and would have preferred chocolate mouse had they known. If revealed as pistachio, those with certain allergies get really hacked off - if revealed as rum and raison those who don't drink are incensed.

[ProfessorDavey]

But do most Tory MPs support Remain now?

Privately, yes I'm sure that most actually do - if they felt that remaining in the EU was the right thing in 2016, why would they now think it to be the wrong thing.

The only thing that would change their mind would be bowing to the view of the electorate - but if there were another referendum, that argument is gone. And in any case that rarely changes convictions - while politicians might accept that the view of the electorate needs to be respected it rarely actually changes minds on matters - were it to do so the opposition having lost a general election would simply accept the winning party's manifesto - but they don't because on principle they don't agree with it.

I very much doubt that many MPs (on any side) have actually changed their mind on whether EU membership is best for the UK or not.

Actually it is pretty easy to pick those politicians who are coming out with the 'party line' but aren't actually convinced - their lack of conviction is obvious. So 

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree - for remainers they know what being in the EU looks like and (regardless of their reservations) they preferred that 'known' to being outside of the EU. That hasn't changed.

While there were of course difference of opinion amongst remain voters they know what it was that they were voting to stay in. On the leaver side there were people voting on the basis of what they thought brexit would be like - despite the fact that they had no idea and one person's view (e.g. Daniel Hannon) would be completely incompatible with another's view (e.g. Nigel Farage).

Use this as an analogy. Imagine someone asks you whether you'd like chocolate mouse for pudding or ice cream in a restaurant. Now if you choose chocolate mouse you know exactly what you are getting and have indeed eaten it in that restaurant many times before. By contrast no-one will tell what flavour of ice cream until you've made the choice, but kind of pretend it is whatever flavour you'd like. But when you choose ice cream you discover that there is only one flavour possible. And when it is revealed as vanilla, many people realise that that's not what they wanted and would have preferred chocolate mouse had they known. If revealed as pistachio, those with certain allergies get really hacked off - if revealed as rum and raison those who don't drink are incensed.

No, that's a shockingly bad analogy and one I suspect you think works because  you like the EU. There are people who don't want the chocolate mousse because they don't like chocolate but hate ice cream more. Some who don't like mousse but hate ice cream more. Some who like neither mousse or chocolate but hate that some people who like ice cream seem a bit scary. Claiming remain as any form more united is simply you trying to do down those you disagree with because of your tribalism.

[Nearly Sane]

Privately, yes I'm sure that most actually do - if they felt that remaining in the EU was the right thing in 2016, why would they now think it to be the wrong thing.

The only thing that would change their mind would be bowing to the view of the electorate - but if there were another referendum, that argument is gone. And in any case that rarely changes convictions - while politicians might accept that the view of the electorate needs to be respected it rarely actually changes minds on matters - were it to do so the opposition having lost a general election would simply accept the winning party's manifesto - but they don't because on principle they don't agree with it.

I very much doubt that many MPs (on any side) have actually changed their mind on whether EU membership is best for the UK or not.

Actually it is pretty easy to pick those politicians who are coming out with the 'party line' but aren't actually convinced - their lack of conviction is obvious. So

Not sure why you selected the single part of my post and left out the rest of it as it would seem to me that you have removed a substantial part of what followed as an argument. And even leaving that aside the Tory MPs in 2916 are not the same as now, and I could also argue that many of those in 2916 sounded somewhat unconvinced about Staying but thought that was the govt line.

[Rhiannon]

Farridge just wanted to be on the telly.

[Nearly Sane]

Farridge just wanted to be on the telly.

And maybe not for this (though that was just those evil Eurocrats)


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/12/nigel-farage-eu-salary-docked-claim-misspent-public-funds#img-1

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure why you selected the single part of my post and left out the rest of it as it would seem to me that you have removed a substantial part of what followed as an argument. And even leaving that aside the Tory MPs in 2916 are not the same as now, and I could also argue that many of those in 2916 sounded somewhat unconvinced about Staying but thought that was the govt line.

Actually there are very few new Tory MPs compared to 2016, partly because the Tories lost seats. No idea the make up of the new-comers re: remain vs leave.

And yes you are correct there will be some that toed the party line to support remain in 2016 but didn't really believe it - however I doubt there would have been many as the tories really did give free reign at all levels for their MPs to support either remain or leave - hence very high profile cabinet members being leading leave campaigners.

But the broader point is that MPs wont actually change their personal view - I suspect very few really think differently in terms of their personal opinion on whether the UK is better in or out of the EU now compared to before the referendum.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually there are very few new Tory MPs compared to 2016, partly because the Tories lost seats. No idea the make up of the new-comers re: remain vs leave.

And yes you are correct there will be some that toed the party line to support remain in 2016 but didn't really believe it - however I doubt there would have been many as the tories really did give free reign at all levels for their MPs to support either remain or leave - hence very high profile cabinet members being leading leave campaigners.

But the broader point is that MPs wont actually change their personal view - I suspect very few really think differently in terms of their personal opinion on whether the UK is better in or out of the EU now compared to before the referendum.

I think that's probably true but MPs get caught in expressing opinions and votes. And stopping something you have said is right to happen because it was voted for is going to be a Farronesque volte face, and one that pretty well all of the govt and shadow front benches would need to do for your scenario.

Again if there was a huge move towards a new referendum, not anything like we have seen so far, then I think your position becomes tenable but it hasn't happened so far. (By huge I think it means past 60 % consistently)

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that's probably true but MPs get caught in expressing opinions and votes. And stopping something you have said is right to happen because it was voted for is going to be a Farronesque volte face, and one that pretty well all of the govt and shadow front benches would need to do for your scenario.

Again if there was a huge move towards a new referendum, not anything like we have seen so far, then I think your position becomes tenable but it hasn't happened so far. (By huge I think it means past 60 % consistently)

The direction of travel is important in determining where we might be in, say 12 months time. Depending on how the question is asked some surveys have found a strong majority for another referendum, others have found a majority against. But what is consistent is the direction of travel - a pretty rapid shift towards support for another referendum.

What is also interesting are the trends in the yougov polling which has been asking whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU. They have been asking this regularly since June 2016 using an identical question. For months hardly anything moved, with a small majority for 'right to vote to leave. But since August there has been a progressing shift - 'right to vote to leave' has been behind ever since this point, which Jan 2018 showing the biggest margin in favour of 'wrong to vote to leave' yet.

Opinion, having been static for a long while directly after the referendum, is now very clearly on the move.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42669293

I see that horrible man Farage has had £35K deducted by the EU.

[jeremyp]

Claiming remain as any form more united is simply you trying to do down those you disagree with because of your tribalism.

Incorrect. The 48% that voted Remain all wanted the same thing: stay in the EU under the current terms. Many of them had ideas about how the EU could be reformed but they all wanted the core deal: stay in the EU.

Since the referendum, if opinion polls are to be believed there are more Remainers. Presumably this is a combination of people who voted Leave finding out about the harsh realities and people who voted Leave not getting the deal they want. However, if they have changed their minds to Remain, they are now in favour of the same deal that all the other Remainers want: stay in the EU.

The claim that there are many varieties of Remainers is bullshit. There his only one possibility with Remain but many possibilities with Leave and it's time the Leavers faced up to that. Well, it's past time.

[Gordon]

Interesting article in the Glasgow Herald.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15892185.Iain_Macwhirter__Forget_Brexit__England_could_yet_end_up_exiting_EU_alone/

[Nearly Sane]

Not supporting Brexit is appeasement


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/22/brexit-appeasement-cbi-gets-big-decisions-wrong-just-point/

[jakswan]

Not supporting Brexit is appeasement

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/22/brexit-appeasement-cbi-gets-big-decisions-wrong-just-point/

Can't read entire article but your post seems to be wrong.

I suppose I shouldn’t be so puzzled. When one reflects on the EU-funded CBI’s record over the years, it seem to have got an enormous number of decisions wrong.

The predecessor to the CBI, the FBI, (Federation of British Industries) supported appeasement and in 1939

[Nearly Sane]

Can't read entire article but your post seems to be wrong.

In what way is the post wrong? The bit quoted draws tge equivalency.

[jakswan]

In what way is the post wrong? The bit quoted draws tge equivalency.

The equivalency is in the error not the position. Otherwise the following is valid:-

Not supporting Scottish Independence is being against being in NATO.

[Nearly Sane]

The equivalency is in the error not the position. Otherwise the following is valid:-

Not supporting Scottish Independence is being against being in NATO.

Sorry, not getting what you are saying here. The article draws the equivalence. I am merely pointing that out. Your statement has no similar context.

[Nearly Sane]

'a mistake, not a disaster' Good old Dave

[jakswan]

Sorry, not getting what you are saying here. The article draws the equivalence. I am merely pointing that out. Your statement has no similar context.

Appeasement is shorthand for a position on an issue, i.e. that we should not to go War with Germany in the 1930's.

Here is the headline of the article:-

On Brexit, as on appeasement, the CBI gets the big decisions wrong.

So your statement 'Brexit is appeasement' is nonsense.

Its effectively saving 'being pro-remain is the same as not wanting to go to war with Germany in the 1930's' they are separate issues how can they be the same?

I could equally say the CBI was for the Euro so all pro-remain are for the Euro, which clearly they are not.

[Nearly Sane]

Appeasement is shorthand for a position on an issue, i.e. that we should not to go War with Germany in the 1930's.

Here is the headline of the article:-

On Brexit, as on appeasement, the CBI gets the big decisions wrong.

So your statement 'Brexit is appeasement' is nonsense.

Its effectively saving 'being pro-remain is the same as not wanting to go to war with Germany in the 1930's' they are separate issues how can they be the same?

I could equally say the CBI was for the Euro so all pro-remain are for the Euro, which clearly they are not.

Again you seem to miss that the equivalency is what IDS does in the article. That you disagree with it just means you disagree with IDS. I do as well

[jakswan]

Again you seem to miss that the equivalency is what IDS does in the article. That you disagree with it just means you disagree with IDS. I do as well

No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.

That you disagree makes you wrong.

[floo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42805485

That explains everything about dear Boris!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.

That you disagree makes you wrong.

When are Brexiteers going to front up with the costs and benefits of Brexit? I'm afraid Brexit is always going to look dodgy. Good to see Rees Mogg appearing but if it's another handwaving performance....forget it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Historical parallels for Brexit

For Brexitters       Dunkirk, WW2
For Remainers      Rise and fall of the Weimar republic

[jeremyp]

No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.

That you disagree makes you wrong.

Why does IDS bring up appeasement at all if he is not drawing a parallel between supporting Remain and appeasement?

IDS is a backstabbing traitorous shit. This is exactly the kind of article I would expect him to write. He can't articulate a good reason in favour of his position so he libels his opponents.