Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

Slightly baffled at something that surely is part if the constitution of the UK being a concession.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41975277

[jakswan]

Bored got me posting here.

Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.

As far as I'm aware only the LibDems support another referendum and the electorate largely ignored them at the last GE.

The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.

Not following politics currently so will take correction happily, appreciate if its not abusive though.

[Nearly Sane]

Bored got me posting here.

Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.

Not sure what the size if the vote to hold a referendum in Parliament has on making it something that isn't advisory. It isn't just theoretically advisory, it is legally advisory. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'practically' here.

As far as I'm aware only the LibDems support another referendum and the electorate largely ignored them at the last GE.

Though since elections are multi threaded answers to questions, not always easy to use them as a determinant answer on a single question.

The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.

Not following politics currently so will take correction happily, appreciate if its not abusive though.

so a bit of name calling from you 'Remaniacs' is fine? Implying madness amongst those you disagree with isn't abusive? Mmm.

Leaving that aside surely there is a value question about whether people have to agree with whatever deal is produced and ignore whether that is bad, no matter that the referendum didn't define a deal as such?

[jeremyp]

The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.

No, if things are going utterly tits up with the negotiations (and to me it looks like they are), I think you can credibly call a halt to Brexit although I agree it might be political suicide for some people.

Still, if people had been prepared to put the well being of the country ahead of narrow political ambition in the first place, we would not be having this discussion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.

No they didn't, precisely because they enacted an advisory referendum - they could have ceded the decision to the electorate by enacting a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP vs AV referendum) - but they didn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.

MPs, whose electoral mandate is, of course, more recent and therefore takes precedence over, the referendum.

[jakswan]

Not sure what the size if the vote to hold a referendum in Parliament has on making it something that isn't advisory. It isn't just theoretically advisory, it is legally advisory. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'practically' here.

 Though since elections are multi threaded answers to questions, not always easy to use them as a determinant answer on a single question.

 so a bit of name calling from you 'Remaniacs' is fine? Implying madness amongst those you disagree with isn't abusive? Mmm.

Leaving that aside surely there is a value question about whether people have to agree with whatever deal is produced and ignore whether that is bad, no matter that the referendum didn't define a deal as such?

I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office. I think the LibDem position is coherent on supporting another vote on a deal no other party supports that position though.

I'm not suggesting a GE isn't multi-threaded just stating Brexit needs to be reversed via another referendum and there isn't support for that by enough MPs.

[jakswan]

No, if things are going utterly tits up with the negotiations (and to me it looks like they are), I think you can credibly call a halt to Brexit although I agree it might be political suicide for some people.

Still, if people had been prepared to put the well being of the country ahead of narrow political ambition in the first place, we would not be having this discussion.

Yes if politicians put aside their ambitions and do what they thought was right then lots of things.

[jakswan]

MPs vote 311 to 76 to reject an amendment in the name of Labour's Ian Murray to exclude EU imports from new powers allowing the government to impose duties after Brexit.

Quote from BBC, apparently Labour whipped to vote it down?

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office.

It they specifically chose to vote for an advisory referendum (rather than a binding one) of course they can. I they feel obligated to enact the referendum result, why make it only advisory.

I thought one of main arguments for Brexit was to ensure that Parliament was sovereign - or is it only sovereign when it takes decisions you like.

[Rhiannon]

The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183

[Rhiannon]

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-loses-seat-on-international-court-of-justice-for-first-time-since-1946-11136644

[Aruntraveller]

The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.

There is in your statement an implication that you believed something Boris said. Can I politely suggest you check yourself in for some therapy that will alleviate the gullibility you appear to be exhibiting. 

[Rhiannon]

There is in your statement an implication that you believed something Boris said. Can I politely suggest you check yourself in for some therapy that will alleviate the gullibility you appear to be exhibiting. 

I don't think the NHS could cope with all the muppets patients who believed in Boris.

[ProfessorDavey]

The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183

Of course there was going to be one as the UK is legally required to meets its proportion of commitments made while it was a member of the EU. The UK cannot sign up to major long term projects that involve significant financial liabilities and then refuse to meet those financial requirements. It matters not that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU - it signed up to the obligations and they remain in place regardless of whether the UK is a member of the EU or not.

[Rhiannon]

Of course there was going to be one as the UK is legally required to meets its proportion of commitments made while it was a member of the EU. The UK cannot sign up to major long term projects that involve significant financial liabilities and then refuse to meet those financial requirements. It matters not that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU - it signed up to the obligations and they remain in place regardless of whether the UK is a member of the EU or not.

But - but - you mean Boris told a fib?

[Nearly Sane]

But - but - you mean Boris told a fib?

I was trying to find out what Boris's latest approval figures and discovered that the yougov site which is delightful place to waste some time on. I was entranced that there is a strong correlation between people who like Arthur Lowe and Michael Gove

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Boris_Johnson

[jakswan]

It they specifically chose to vote for an advisory referendum (rather than a binding one) of course they can. I they feel obligated to enact the referendum result, why make it only advisory.

We will have to agree to disagree, Corbyn leader of the Opposition seems to side with me on this one. The centrists in Labour are now powerless to mount another challenge on Corbyn prior to Brexit, and Labour gained more seats in the last election.

Corbyn, almost pro-Brexit leads the opposition and the Tories run Govt, its happening.

I thought one of main arguments for Brexit was to ensure that Parliament was sovereign - or is it only sovereign when it takes decisions you like.

Not quite I think the UK Parliament is more accountable to the electorate it serves.

[ProfessorDavey]

We will have to agree to disagree ...

What is it about the word 'advisory' that you do not understand? This isn't a matter of opinion, but a statement of fact, and this was clearly indicated in the official briefing paper on the European Union Referendum Bill. To quote:

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the result of the referendum, nor set a term limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

The referendum was advisory - that is a fact - and there is no requirement for the Government to implement the result of the referendum - that too is a fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not quite I think the UK Parliament is more accountable to the electorate it serves.

I don't think you understand what sovereign means.

The UK Government is only accountable to the electorate in democratic terms. Once elected the electorate has no direct ability to 'force' the government to take a particular line - MPs are representatives nor delegates. However, of course, if a government (and MPs) act in a manner that the electorate don't like they can vote them out at the next opportunity.

So in the current example Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has a perfect right to say 'stuff the referendum result, we are not implementing it' - if the electorate doesn't like that view it can vote in a new set of MPs likely to take a different line.

[jakswan]

Why do discussions with you always feel like its as point scoring exercise.

What is it about the word 'advisory' that you do not understand? This isn't a matter of opinion, but a statement of fact, and this was clearly indicated in the official briefing paper on the European Union Referendum Bill. To quote:

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the result of the referendum, nor set a term limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

The referendum was advisory - that is a fact - and there is no requirement for the Government to implement the result of the referendum - that too is a fact.

Never claimed it was not advisory, question if it could be have been binding but lets not discuss issues which neither of us care about.

I stated:-
I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office.

You then claimed this wasn't an issue, we agree to disagree on that point.

[jakswan]

I don't think you understand what sovereign means.

I don't think you understand what I said.

The UK Government is only accountable to the electorate in democratic terms. Once elected the electorate has no direct ability to 'force' the government to take a particular line - MPs are representatives nor delegates. However, of course, if a government (and MPs) act in a manner that the electorate don't like they can vote them out at the next opportunity.

So in the current example Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has a perfect right to say 'stuff the referendum result, we are not implementing it' - if the electorate doesn't like that view it can vote in a new set of MPs likely to take a different line.

Spare me the lecture and read back, I said accountable, politicians are held to account not just by the voting booth but by the media \ culture.

In any event none of the current MP's got elected on the basis of 'stuff the referendum result' (I suspect they agree with me and know this would be political suicide) one party were advocating another referendum on the deal and they got a handful of seats. 

There are many centrist Labour MP's who would, I guess, support that policy, but Corbyn is in control empowered by the recent election.

In the last GE I could have seen a very soft Brexit happening if:-

1) Tory had won a massive majority reducing the Brexit Tory group to an irrelevance
2) Corbyn had not gained seats resulting in his demise and the return of the party to the centre
3) A stronger LibDem showing resulting in another coalition which the Lib Dems would have insisted on another referendum

[ProfessorDavey]

In the last GE I could have seen a very soft Brexit happening if:-

1) Tory had won a massive majority reducing the Brexit Tory group to an irrelevance
2) Corbyn had not gained seats resulting in his demise and the return of the party to the centre
3) A stronger LibDem showing resulting in another coalition which the Lib Dems would have insisted on another referendum

As soon as the details of a Brexit deal become clear all semblance of a mandate will be gone. There is certainly no mandate for a hard Brexit, despite what the more extreme Brexit nutters claim. And were the Government to move in a soft Brexit direction then the same people would cry 'betrayal'.

On a second referendum, well that will depend entirely on the developing political mood. Once people turn against what is actually proposed and see it variously as 'not what I voted for' then the clamour will grow. Sure only one party advocated it in 2017, but the political mood wasn't in their favour as it was effectively a two horse race. Had one of the main parties advocated a second referendum (presumably Labour) then who knows what would have happened.

But the most likely scenario is that May's government will fall at some point between now and implementation of a final deal, resulting in either a general election or a rainbow coalition without a general election. That would be as a direct result of disquiet over the direction of Brexit. It would be very easy politically for an incoming government to say that the people should have the final say, once they had done that then whether or not people wanted a referendum they would simply need to get on with it as has happened in previous referendums. Don't forget that prior to the 2015 general election just 4% of people say the EU as a big issue - there was no clamour for a referendum in the first place, it was just proposed for political reasons by a party to try and lance the boil of their ultra eurosceptic fanatics in an election that they didn't think they would win.

[jakswan]

As soon as the details of a Brexit deal become clear all semblance of a mandate will be gone. There is certainly no mandate for a hard Brexit, despite what the more extreme Brexit nutters claim. And were the Government to move in a soft Brexit direction then the same people would cry 'betrayal'.

As I recall leaving the single market you regard as hard Brexit? If so then what refer to as a hard Brexit others just think of as Brexit.

On a second referendum, well that will depend entirely on the developing political mood. Once people turn against what is actually proposed and see it variously as 'not what I voted for' then the clamour will grow. Sure only one party advocated it in 2017, but the political mood wasn't in their favour as it was effectively a two horse race. Had one of the main parties advocated a second referendum (presumably Labour) then who knows what would have happened.

Think I agree but Jezza isn't pro-EU so was never going to happen.

But the most likely scenario is that May's government will fall at some point between now and implementation of a final deal, resulting in either a general election or a rainbow coalition without a general election. That would be as a direct result of disquiet over the direction of Brexit. It would be very easy politically for an incoming government to say that the people should have the final say, once they had done that then whether or not people wanted a referendum they would simply need to get on with it as has happened in previous referendums.

You will need to walk me through that scenario, if Labour were in the control of a centrist I can see it happening, but given how strong Corbyn is in Labour just can't see it.

 
Don't forget that prior to the 2015 general election just 4% of people say the EU as a big issue - there was no clamour for a referendum in the first place, it was just proposed for political reasons by a party to try and lance the boil of their ultra eurosceptic fanatics in an election that they didn't think they would win.

First I suggest you check who voted for the EU vote in Parliament, secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I recall leaving the single market you regard as hard Brexit? If so then what refer to as a hard Brexit others just think of as Brexit.

Think I agree but Jezza isn't pro-EU so was never going to happen.

You will need to walk me through that scenario, if Labour were in the control of a centrist I can see it happening, but given how strong Corbyn is in Labour just can't see it.

First I suggest you check who voted for the EU vote in Parliament, secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.

I don't think you really understand what makes Corbyn tick. Having spent many years as a Labour party member I have a pretty good understanding of what makes his kind of politics tick. For him Labour are first and foremost a members organisation and what position is taken will always be driven first and foremost by those members. Effectively he will hold in behind the views of the membership, determined via their internal democratic processes, regardless of his own personal view.

Don't believe me, well think about this. Possible the most firmly held (and let's face it principles view) that Corbyn holds is his opposition to nuclear weapons - it runs through him like a stick of rock. Yet his 2017 manifesto included this:

'Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world.'

You might wonder how on earth a committed anti nuclear weapons campaigner whose resolutely opposes trident replacement as a personal view, could possibly be leader of a party that is committed to exactly the opposite. But it is obvious once you understand what makes him tick. He will accept that policy as it is the democratically decided view of the members.

So were the membership to democratically agree to support a second referendum, he will go along with that, regardless of his personal views. That hasn't happened yet, but I think it is highly possible given how pro-EU, pro-remain the Labour party is - significantly in its supporter, even more so in its membership.