Brexit - the next steps

[jakswan]

The limpet-like reliance of some on the 2016 result seems flawed to me, since even if the reasons for calling it (Tory party factionalism)

Labour & Tories supported calling it, even the LibDems as I recall.

For the 100th time all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.

So, it would be better in my view to just abandon the current process (if the Article 50 ECJ advice is confirmed) and approach it again,

Accept you are stating your view but I can't recall any MP holding this position.

[jakswan]

Indeed the notion that you cannot change your mind is bonkers -

Whom has that notion?

[ProfessorDavey]

Whom has that notion?

Anyone who simply refuses to countenance a referendum on the final deal because 'we made the decision in 2016'

[jakswan]

Anyone who simply refuses to countenance a referendum on the final deal because 'we made the decision in 2016'

Not me then great.

Travelling today but I hear Jezza with the Govt on the ropes over Brexit, having just lost three votes yesterday didn't go for May's Brexit in PMQs.

What a boy!

[Nearly Sane]

Not me then great.

Travelling today but I hear Jezza with the Govt on the ropes over Brexit, having just lost three votes yesterday didn't go for May's Brexit in PMQs.

What a boy!

I can see the tactic there. If he goes on Brexit it gets subsumed into the ongoing debates, and raising issues like Universal Credit shows that he's doing the day job.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not me then great.

So on what basis do you object to a referendum on the final deal then.

[jakswan]

So on what basis do you object to a referendum on the final deal then.

I've told you.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've told you.

Sorry, missed that. Can you tell me again please.

[Spud]

What, by giving the people the choice to make the final decision - how is that conspiring to block!?!

If parliament stopped brexit without a referendum, you'd have a point but if brexit didn't happen down to the will of the people expressed via a referendum, how on earth could that be construed as the 'establishment blocking it'.

The referendum wasn't legally binding. Since it interferes with the GFA, and few voters knew that before voting, there is good reason for them to have a consultatary second vote or just bin Brexit.

[Gordon]

Labour & Tories supported calling it, even the LibDems as I recall.

For the 100th time all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.

Not all: I don't think the SNP were over-worried about UKIP.

Accept you are stating your view but I can't recall any MP holding this position.

Perhaps, as the rancour escalates, drawing a line under the current process might become more attractive, and in no way does abandoning this incarnation of Brexit prevent it being resurrected during the next GE campaign.

[jakswan]

I've told you.

Another referendum will be divise and see the rise of the far right.

[ProfessorDavey]

Another referendum will be divise

And of course the current situation is full of harmony isn't it. Frankly any approach from here on in will be divisive and hated by significant parts of the population. I think a referendum to agree the final decision - effectively getting the people to have the final say on what they started in 2016 is likely to be the least divisive approach.

and see the rise of the far right.

Regardless of the result?

[jakswan]

And of course the current situation is full of harmony isn't it. Frankly any approach from here on in will be divisive and hated by significant parts of the population. I think a referendum to agree the final decision - effectively getting the people to have the final say on what they started in 2016 is likely to be the least divisive approach.

If we leave on May's deal the division is over? If we leave on Norway division is over?

I get some of the extremes will still campaign for rejoin EU - leave EU\EFTA but for almost everyone it will be settled issue for a generation.

Regardless of the result?

No see above.
[/quote]

[Rhiannon]

Another referendum will be divise and see the rise of the far right.

This is already happening. It’s too late.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we leave on May's deal the division is over?

Rubbish - May's deal is, of itself, hugely divisive (literally so at it could create a dividing line between GB and NI) - but May's deal isn't actually a final deal, merely a staging post. If we leave with May's withdrawal arrangement we we just be starting years of negotiation (which will be hugely divisive) on the permanent arrangement.

Don't forget that May's deal isn't the permanent one - it is merely supposed to take us until end 2020. That can be extended, but merely suggesting its extension will be massively divisive.

Whatever route we take will be hugely divisive - the way to reduce that divisiveness (not eradicate it) is to ensure that the final decision is taken by the people.

[jakswan]

Not all: I don't think the SNP were over-worried about UKIP.

Most UK wide parties then.

Perhaps, as the rancour escalates, drawing a line under the current process might become more attractive, and in no way does abandoning this incarnation of Brexit prevent it being resurrected during the next GE campaign.

It's 0.01% probable.

If the LibDems won a majority in the House of Commons maybe.

[jakswan]

This is already happening. It’s too late.

Where? UKIP are an irrelevance.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've been thinking about how divisive various possible outcomes would be (they all would), and I think the magnitude would be a combination of the level of 'betrayal' and the level of 'impact'.

Betrayal being that the outcome is not what people voted for. Impact being the effect on people's lives and the length of the continuation of uncertainty.

So lets look at possible outcomes without a second referendum.

Remain - massively high on 'betrayal', but low on 'impact' - life would return to a level of normality immediately and would continue in that vein.

No deal - high on 'betrayal' - both remainers and many leave voters would rightly feel betrayed that this was never a suggested outcome in 2016. Impact - massively high, all bets are off on the immediate and medium/long term impact of crashing out in March without a deal - the shock would be felt for years, perhaps decades. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.

May's deal - medium on 'betrayal' - many brexit voters feel passionately that it isn't really brexit and that 'it wasn't what we voted for'. Impact high - continued uncertainty as the real issues are kicked down the road for after the withdrawal agreement ends. Would result in brief respite as we transition into withdrawal agreement, but then the same arguments over Norway vs WTO vs cake and eat it, vs backstop etc start all over again. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.

[jakswan]

I've been thinking about how divisive various possible outcomes would be (they all would), and I think the magnitude would be a combination of the level of 'betrayal' and the level of 'impact'.

Betrayal being that the outcome is not what people voted for. Impact being the effect on people's lives and the length of the continuation of uncertainty.

So lets look at possible outcomes without a second referendum.

Remain - massively high on 'betrayal', but low on 'impact' - life would return to a level of normality immediately and would continue in that vein.

No deal - high on 'betrayal' - both remainers and many leave voters would rightly feel betrayed that this was never a suggested outcome in 2016. Impact - massively high, all bets are off on the immediate and medium/long term impact of crashing out in March without a deal - the shock would be felt for years, perhaps decades. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.

May's deal - medium on 'betrayal' - many brexit voters feel passionately that it isn't really brexit and that 'it wasn't what we voted for'. Impact high - continued uncertainty as the real issues are kicked down the road for after the withdrawal agreement ends. Would result in brief respite as we transition into withdrawal agreement, but then the same arguments over Norway vs WTO vs cake and eat it, vs backstop etc start all over again. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.

Those are not the only options.

May's deal getting voted down will result in another scramble for Norway\something else and I've just listened to Barry Gardiner say they will not go for another referendum at that time but instead go back to the EU.

Scotland or NI leaving isn't a threat, Scotland's electorate thinks its more left than rUK so they have valid case to leave rUK.

NI needs a border poll and that isn't likely anytime soon, but if they wanted to leave the principle of self determination is fine.   

Just imagine if Scotland voted yes in their independence referendum but their Parliament went back to the people because they couldn't get a good deal from rUK, there would be uproar.

There is always division perhaps that is the wrong word, disenfranchised better, a effecting large section of the population, the hard right returns.....

[ProfessorDavey]

Those are not the only options.

Yes they are.

Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU (we are not in a position to guarantee that as it would require ratification by the EU) - but frankly all that would do is tweak up/down the 'betrayal' element traded off against a balancing effect on 'impact' - so a softer deal might increase betrayal but reduce impact, while a harder one could do the reverse.

But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes they are.

Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU (we are not in a position to guarantee that as it would require ratification by the EU) - but frankly all that would do is tweak up/down the 'betrayal' element traded off against a balancing effect on 'impact' - so a softer deal might increase betrayal but reduce impact, while a harder one could do the reverse.

But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.

Given we don't know the final deal surely another vote is just as invalid as the last one?

[jakswan]

Yes they are.

Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU

Since many members of Parliament are planning on going back to the EU for a revised\new deal it not hypothetical. The Labour party's policy is to go back to the EU.

But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.

Having a huge amount of the electorate disenfranchised and seeing the rise of the hard right is too big a risk to take.

EFTA need not take long, well established and its look like EFTA countries would be welcoming.

[Aruntraveller]

So you want to remain but are not campaigning for remain?

I said I didn't want another referendum.

You really should read what's written before you make yourself look silly.

[Gordon]

Having a huge amount of the electorate disenfranchised and seeing the rise of the hard right is too big a risk to take.

What 'hard right' do you mean?

[jeremyp]

It will be seen as 'give peoples vote version 1, get wrong answer, give peoples vote version 2'. Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.

Actually, it’s vote versions 2 and 3 respectively. Version 1 happened in 1975 and Remain won then. It’s funny how Brexiteers arguing another referendum would be a mockery of democracy seem to forget that the 2016 referendum was already another referendum.

There will be outrage if there is another vote, it will be total carnage, the country will be more divided and that division will get worse regardless of who wins.

Only if the Brexiteers don’t have the good grace to recognize they are no longer in the majority. If Brexit wins again, I think most Remainers would say “it’s a fair cop”.

Now is the time to compromise, Norway doesn't please everyone but at least it is a compromise.

Norway is the best option except staying in. It has a flaw though: it means we are still bound to EU rules but without any say in how they are made. Even a Brexiteers should prefer full membership to that, so why not stay in?