Brexit - the next steps

[Sebastian Toe]

Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?

Tixerb?
It has a certain ring to it!

[Rhiannon]

We need a referendum on it.

[torridon]

Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?

I'm hoping it will, the whole idea is barking mad if you ask me.

Maybe it will be an undeliverable, in practice.  British governments have a track record of incompetence in delivery and this is a bigger project than anything in the last 60 years; trying to get it through our parliamentary system is going to be chaotic and many political careers are going to burn in the attempt.  This will unfold over time during which public opinion will start to change as the realities of the situation become more evident.

[Rhiannon]

George Soros certainly thinks Brexit will be reversed. With May being so weak now and Hammond making conciliatory noises perhaps it will. I hope so. I don't regard the first referendum as a genuinely democratic decision because of the outright lies that were told.

[torridon]

George Soros certainly thinks Brexit will be reversed. With May being so weak now and Hammond making conciliatory noises perhaps it will. I hope so. I don't regard the first referendum as a genuinely democratic decision because of the outright lies that were told.

I regard the referendum result as a narrow victory for ideology, prejudice and fantasy over reason, fair mindedness and pragmatism. A momentary aberration in modern British political history, a moment of national shame and embarrassment. I hope we come to our senses sooner rather than later.

[Rhiannon]

I think it comes from years of neglecting to understand the lives of ordinary people by all sides of the political divide. I also think that nationalism in Scotland awoke an English nationalism that had to be expressed somehow. I've heard so many people say that they voted without understanding the implications of what they were voting for and now many who voted leave are saying that they felt lied to, which they were. I'm not ashamed that ordinary Britons voted Leave. I'm ashamed that our politicians - left as well as right - couldn't do a decent job of explaining exactly what was at stake. I'm ashamed that we didn't have a strong leader to fight for the Remain side - Corbyn was so obviously lukewarm, and Cameron's Project Fear was the opposite of what was needed. Above all else I'm ashamed that the architects of the lies that were sold to us are still anywhere near our politics and our press.

And I'm sad beyond measure that nationalism has divided us from each other and from the EU and I hate the division that I see. And I really really hope that the Eastern Europeans around where I live stay, because they are great.

Eta and what I really hate is feeling so bloody helpless about the mess this is going to cause.

[torridon]

Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe.  I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor.  Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.

[Rhiannon]

Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe.  I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor.  Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.

I think what happened there was the ease with which migrants were linked to terror attacks and also attacks on women. I'm not sure that we are so bad at welcoming people in times of need, but the world feels frightening right now and that is when anyone 'other' can appear to be a threat. Maybe that has something to do with it, a kind of belief that we can somehow fling up our walls, shut out everyone else's shit and still have honey for tea.

[Nearly Sane]

Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe.  I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor.  Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.

Sorry, that just seems a hugely simplistic idea. I don't see any real evidence that the UK is less welcoming to immigrants consistently as Sweden or Germany. I think in terms of the attitudes of politicians we are obviously in a period of down with immigration but as a whole, historically, your point doesn't seem valid to me. After all which country in the last hundred years carried out a systematic murder of those perceived as 'other'?

[Nearly Sane]

I think what happened there was the ease with which migrants were linked to terror attacks and also attacks on women. I'm not sure that we are so bad at welcoming people in times of need, but the world feels frightening right now and that is when anyone 'other' can appear to be a threat. Maybe that has something to do with it, a kind of belief that we can somehow fling up our walls, shut out everyone else's shit and still have honey for tea.

I agree with a lot of this but would suggest that as with anything where 17million people agree in one thing there are 17m+ different reasons for them doing so. I think there is a substantial band of people who think that instead of throwing up walls this allows us to move to freer trade and that they saw the EU as restrictive. I think there us an element who see the EY as representing faster change and they want to stop change. I think there is a group who see the EU as slowing change and want to move faster. I think some dislike it because it is too left wing, and some dislike it because it is too right wing.

There is a common narrative that people spun about Clinton's and Remain's defeats that it happened because they tried to pull together a coalition of interests rather than a genuine movement, which you ignores that that is true of Trump and Leave. It's behind this whole idea that 'The people have spoken' which argues that the 52% leave and the 49% Trump voters are somehow more legitimate than their opposition.

[Harrowby Hall]

Why is nobody challenging May and others - including Hammond - when they say that result of the referendum showed "overwhelming support" for Brexit? To me, this indicates that the main agenda is still the Conservative Party and not the well-being of the nation/union.

I presume that May is doing whatever she can to hang on in spite of her stupidity in calling an election. Perhaps in a moment of genuine political perception he sees it as her mission to keep Boris Johnson out of Downing Street.

My hope is that as the consequences become more apparent and disastrous that the Brexit "dream" will turn into a nightmare. Perhaps this may lead to the proper examination of the British constitution which should have been Cameron's response to the Scottish indyref.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought the 'overwhelming support' line was being trotted out in relation to the election where over 85%voted for parties with Brexit in their manifestoes?

I am not sure I understand why you ate hoping for catastrophe so that people suffer. Seems an odd approach to me.

[floo]

Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?

It would be fantastic if it is, it is doing the UK no good at all.

[Harrowby Hall]

I am not sure I understand why you ate hoping for catastrophe so that people suffer. Seems an odd approach to me.

What I said was "as the consequences become more apparent and disastrous". Perhaps I should have written "potentially disastrous". I am not hoping for catastrophe but the avoidance of catastrophe. Catastrophe will accompany Brexit.

[wigginhall]

I think more people are realizing that no deal could  be a catastrophe, if trade physically stops across the Channel, planes  can't take off, and so on.   So there seems to be some edging towards a 'transition', which can mean anything you like.   For someone like Hammond, it sounds like a kind of Norway/Swiss/Turkey deal, which replicates the customs union.   Whether the EU will accept this, dunno.

The idea of a transition also seems to mean anything from 2 more years, to forever.

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought the 'overwhelming support' line was being trotted out in relation to the election where over 85%voted for parties with Brexit in their manifestoes?

Completely irrelevant.

You could just as easily claim that in 2015 approximately 87% of the electorate voted for parties that had staying in the EU in their manifesto, indicating 'overwhelming support' for the EU and therefore no need for a referendum.

You cannot make those crude assumptions from a general election where voters vote on a whole variety of issues.

A couple of interesting things from today's yougov poll.

Firstly they continue to ask their question about whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU (they've been asking this regularly for the past year) - still no major change - I think there was a 2% majority for 'wrong' but effectively the country remains completely split down the middle on this question.

Secondly that we are seeing a consistent shift toward favouring soft brexit and remaining in the single market, even if that means no restrictions on freedom of movement.

So from the poll, the results were:

'It is more important for Britain to have control over EU
immigration into Britain than to keep free trade': 42%.

'It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with
the EU without tariff barriers than it is to control EU
immigration': 58%.

This aligns pretty well with Survation who found the following:

'A "hard" Brexit, involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 35%

'A "soft" Brexit, not involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 55%

And before people have a go at polling organisations claiming they got it wrong at the general election - Survation and YouGov were far and away the most accurate, with the YouGov model being almost spot on.

[Nearly Sane]

Completely irrelevant.

You could just as easily claim that in 2015 approximately 87% of the electorate voted for parties that had staying in the EU in their manifesto, indicating 'overwhelming support' for the EU and therefore no need for a referendum.

You cannot make those crude assumptions from a general election where voters vote on a whole variety of issues.

A couple of interesting things from today's yougov poll.

Firstly they continue to ask their question about whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU (they've been asking this regularly for the past year) - still no major change - I think there was a 2% majority for 'wrong' but effectively the country remains completely split down the middle on this question.

Secondly that we are seeing a consistent shift toward favouring soft brexit and remaining in the single market, even if that means no restrictions on freedom of movement.

So from the poll, the results were:

'It is more important for Britain to have control over EU
immigration into Britain than to keep free trade': 42%.

'It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with
the EU without tariff barriers than it is to control EU
immigration': 58%.

This aligns pretty well with Survation who found the following:

'A "hard" Brexit, involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 35%

'A "soft" Brexit, not involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 55%

And before people have a go at polling organisations claiming they got it wrong at the general election - Survation and YouGov were far and away the most accurate, with the YouGov model being almost spot on.

Just to note I wasn't making a case but questioning what the use of overwhelming support referred to. And since I have seen you use the 87% argument from 2015, it seems a bit odd to me that you then object about others (not me) using the reverse.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note I wasn't making a case but questioning what the use of overwhelming support referred to. And since I have seen you use the 87% argument from 2015, it seems a bit odd to me that you then object about others (not me) using the reverse.

Sorry NS - wasn't having a go at you at all.

And no I don't believe I ever claimed that the 'fact' of 87% of the electorate voting for parties that supported staying in the EU in the 2015 general election meant there was overwhelming support for the EU - simply because people vote in general elections on a range of issues, not just one. From memory (no doubt you will pull out the posts) the point I was making was about mandate in parliament - and of course the result of the 2017 election (unlike 2015) is that no party won an overall majority, so no party can claim a mandate for their manifesto.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry NS - wasn't having a go at you at all.

And no I don't believe I ever claimed that the 'fact' of 87% of the electorate voting for parties that supported staying in the EU in the 2015 general election meant there was overwhelming support for the EU - simply because people vote in general elections on a range of issues, not just one. From memory (no doubt you will pull out the posts) the point I was making was about mandate in parliament - and of course the result of the 2017 election (unlike 2015) is that no party won an overall majority, so no party can claim a mandate for their manifesto.

No problem. I think though, surely, saying a majority of seats in FPTP is a majority is surely flawed? This seems to say that in getting 36% of the vote Cameron had a more legitimate mandate than getting 42%?.

[ProfessorDavey]

No problem. I think though, surely, saying a majority of seats in FPTP is a majority is surely flawed? This seems to say that in getting 36% of the vote Cameron had a more legitimate mandate than getting 42%?.

I don't like the FPTP system, but if that is the system you have, you need to acknowledge what winning means under that system. And winning mean that you gain a majority of the seats in parliament, i.e. 326 (sure you can argue about the non appearance of the Sinn Fein MPs, but that is tinkering). If you don't win 326 MPs you haven't won - you may be the best loser, but winning in FPTP means an overall majority, because only then can you guarantee that you can proceed with your mandate because you have enough MPs that you can whip to vote in favour of the proposals.

So under FPTP Cameron's 330 seats is better that May's 318 - critically better as the former is above the critical 326 while the latter is below.

It is easy to claim vote share as indicating legitimacy, but it doesn't really work in a multi-party FPTP system as we don't have a single national vote, we have 650 separate and individual votes.

Now, to reiterate, I don't like FPTP as a system, but that is what it means. For what it is worth neither 36% or 42% would come close to providing a majority mandate under a pure proportional system, as that would require over 50%. That said, you cannot readily assume that how people voted in a FPTP system would be the same as under a different, more proportional system.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely though the question is that the very fact that FPTP gives such anomalous results mean that talking about a mandate is ludicrous. That something 'wins' in an illogical system doesn't address whether it is logically valid.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely though the question is that the very fact that FPTP gives such anomalous results mean that talking about a mandate is ludicrous. That something 'wins' in an illogical system doesn't address whether it is logically valid.

I'm not sure that the results of 2015 and 2017 are anomalous.

The key under FPTP isn't necessarily the individual party vote share, but the lead. In 2015 the Tories had a national lead over Labour of 6.4%, in 2017 that had shrunk to just 2.3%, in other words a swing from Tory to Labour. As such is seems completely expected that there would be a shift in seats from Tory to Labour, as indeed we saw.

[wigginhall]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/23/10/26809-xelocq.jpg

[Rhiannon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/as-the-brexit-vote-turns-one-leaving-has-never-been-more-uncertain

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/as-the-brexit-vote-turns-one-leaving-has-never-been-more-uncertain

Gisela Stuart - one of the leaders of the Leave campaign (and one of the very few Labour figures to campaign to leave) - is now saying that the referendum was a mistake and should never have taken place.

Who was it that said:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

Oh, yes - that would be David Davis - the Minister for Brexit.