Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

... secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.

Different times.

It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.

So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.

So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf

[ProfessorDavey]

Different times.

It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.

So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.

So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf

To make the contrast even more stark.

May 2015 - General Election, which huge focus on the possibility of a referendum on EU membership just 2% of the UK population saw the EU as the most important issue facing the UK, ranked equal 14th in issues.

Sept 2017 (the most recent) 31% see the EU as the most important issue facing the UK, that is the top issue by a country mile, with the next being the NHS on just 12%.

Talk about taking a non-issue and creating it as a problem.

Bottom line - the UK population wasn't the slightest bit concerned about the EU as an issue when we were a member, they are now massively concerned about the EU and our relationships when we are leaving.

[jakswan]

Different times.

It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.

So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.

So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf

The Tories faced a problem in their party, it was voted through Parliament with an overwhelming majority.

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.

[jakswan]

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.

I think that being in the manifesto was hard fought by one contingent within the party. It is not Labour policy to have another vote, I can't see that changing given who now controls the party.

Lets recap

Davey so far wrong on Brexit, wrong on art50 getting through Parliament, wrong on there being an early election, wrong on DUP supporting staying in single market.

Will he be right on Labour changing policy?

Not likely.

I get you see this as an issue but it would take a rebellion by the centrists that would tear Labour apart, those Labour MP's must feel Brexit is a price worth paying for Labour's future.

[Nearly Sane]

Growth predictions in the budget not looking good.

[Nearly Sane]

The Tories faced a problem in their party, it was voted through Parliament with an overwhelming majority.

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.

So if the vote was overwhelming and the vote said overwhelmingly that the referendum was advisory you would be saying that you think it was then advisory? Overwhelmingly?

I don't understand what your issue is with Prof D's post here as it is an explanation  to a question you asked. Was your question so confusing that you didn't know what point you were making?

[ProfessorDavey]

It is not Labour policy to have another vote, I can't see that changing given who now controls the party.

The members control the party - that is the key change that Corbyn has taken. If the members decide to change the policy Corbyn will fold into line, because that is how he operates.

[jakswan]

So if the vote was overwhelming and the vote said overwhelmingly that the referendum was advisory you would be saying that you think it was then advisory? Overwhelmingly?

I accept ProfD's point about it wasn't a big issue but now is a bigger issue. He then went on about the history of the issue how it was brought about solely by the Tories if so why did the Eu referendum bill pass through Parliament so easily:-

MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the bill.
The Conservatives and Labour support the bill, but the SNP opposes it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157

Never claimed it wasn't advisory.

The point over which we disagree is that I don't think politicians who voted for the referendum can then merrily ignore the result.

I seem to recall Hilary Benn saying 'We have to respect the outcome of the referendum'.

Therefore the only way to undo Brexit is another vote, which Davey seems to have accepted since the next straw he is clutching at is that Labour will change policy.

I don't understand what your issue is with Prof D's post here as it is an explanation  to a question you asked. Was your question so confusing that you didn't know what point you were making?

I hope you are not confused now.

[Rhiannon]

Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?

[Aruntraveller]

Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?

Will you stop pointing out awkward facts. Let people live out their demented fantasies about taking back control. Of course, you do have to stop and wonder about what will be left to take control of.

But there I go again remoaning. (Thought I'd stick that in to save one of the jolly wags on here the bother of posting it)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Recently watched a programme about the English Scottish border through the ages by Tory with a story Rory Stewart.

Wondered if Kent might turn into a sort of wild border country no man's land after Brexit. Then Low and Behold this is actually a proposal with the Border being moved to Ashford. The Tories have no respect for Hellfire corner it seems.

[ProfessorDavey]

Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?

Probably, and it would be true unlike the Leave campaigns slogan.

[ProfessorDavey]

I accept ProfD's point about it wasn't a big issue but now is a bigger issue.

Talk about understatement:

non-issue to massive issue is rather more realistic description.

May 2015 - just 1% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 14th of issues
Sept 2017 - 31% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 1st of issues, with the next largest at just 12%.

One way to look at what Governments are supposed to do it to turn issues that worry lots of people into issue that now longer concern people. This Government has done the reverse in spectacular style - and a complete own goal.

[jakswan]

Talk about understatement:

non-issue to massive issue is rather more realistic description.

May 2015 - just 1% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 14th of issues
Sept 2017 - 31% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 1st of issues, with the next largest at just 12%.

One way to look at what Governments are supposed to do it to turn issues that worry lots of people into issue that now longer concern people. This Government has done the reverse in spectacular style - and a complete own goal.

So whilst discussing the chances and mechanics of Brexit happening you opted to focus on semantics.

Noted.

[Rhiannon]

Will you stop pointing out awkward facts. Let people live out their demented fantasies about taking back control. Of course, you do have to stop and wonder about what will be left to take control of.

But there I go again remoaning. (Thought I'd stick that in to save one of the jolly wags on here the bother of posting it)

It’s democracy in action, Trent. Far more important than the NHS, or affordable food, or national security, or animal welfare, or the environment...

[Aruntraveller]

It’s democracy in action, Trent. Far more important than the NHS, or affordable food, or national security, or animal welfare, or the environment...

Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.

[Rhiannon]

Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.

Straight out of the Alan Burns big book of compassion and reason.

[jakswan]

Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.

Fake News.

[ProfessorDavey]

So whilst discussing the chances and mechanics of Brexit happening you opted to focus on semantics.

Noted.

I don't think it is semantics to point out that you appear to be massively underplaying the significance of the huge increase in people concerned about our relationship with the EU (which of course is about Brexit) compared to May 2015.

The government have created a monster, without any need to do so, and we are now all suffering.

To note that the £3billion on preparing for Brexit (a completely unnecessary expense seeing as we shouldn't be in that position) announced yesterday is on top of £700m already announced - so £3.7billion over 2 years. To put that in some kind of context - you could fund approximately 90,000 nurses with that money.

Point being that just because a tiny minority shout very loudly and scream and scream until they are sick about their little issue (the 1% who thought the EU was the top issue for the country) doesn't mean that the Government should pander to them with a referendum. The vast majority of the people in the UK were not concerned about our relationship with the EU, yet of course when you provide a totally unnecessary and unjustified referendum you 'force' them to be concerned whether or not that actually were. You create concern where there was none and generate division where there was little.

[Aruntraveller]

Fake News.

Really? Can you substantiate that Donald?

I mean why would Michael Gove have to make a promise to introduce "any necessary changes" this morning if the safeguards are currently there? 

[jeremyp]

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

Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.

[jeremyp]

An unforeseen side effect of Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-42095477

I hope the money that the five cities involved have unknowingly pissed up the wall will be counted as part of the cost of Brexit. Perhaps they should be refunded out of the £3 billion.

[jeremyp]

Fake News.

Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/

[Nearly Sane]

Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.

Even if that weren't specifically known, we have a representative democracy not a delegative one. But agree, the idea that Ken Clarke is supposed to vote for Brexit seems bizarre.

[Rhiannon]

Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/

The notion that existing legislation covers animal sentience is utter bollocks. As the article makes clear, it doesn't cover wild or lab animals. Apart from anything else this will please the Tory pro-hunt supporters.