Brexit - the next steps

[Gordon]

general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.

Do you honestly see UKIP as that sort of threat?

They got routed in the last local elections, and are currently a dysfunctional mess.

[ProfessorDavey]

I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.

It wouldn't be remain vs leave, but remain vs an agreed deal - a million miles from the 2016 referendum.

Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.

In your dreams - if that happened UKIP may well have a surge, they wouldn't come close to winning an election under the current rules. You argument is the same as thinking that in 2017 the LibDems would have hoovered up the disenfranchised remain-supporting 48%.

[jakswan]

Do you honestly see UKIP as that sort of threat?

They got routed in the last local elections, and are currently a dysfunctional mess.

They won an EU election, the referendum was designed to take them out, it worked.

[Gordon]

They won an EU election, the referendum was designed to take them out, it worked.

They may have had their moment in the sun, albeit not so much here, but surely that was then - given there is a bunch of fairly hawkish Tories, and since UKIP are in such a bad way, it is hard to see that there is any space for them to occupy now.

[jakswan]

It wouldn't be remain vs leave, but remain vs an agreed deal - a million miles from the 2016 referendum.

50% exactly the same, in what world is that a million miles?

All hypothetical anyway it would EFTA v free trade.

In your dreams - if that happened UKIP may well have a surge, they wouldn't come close to winning an election under the current rules. You argument is the same as thinking that in 2017 the LibDems would have hoovered up the disenfranchised remain-supporting 48%.

In 2017 remain had managed to kid themselves that Jezza was going to in some way stop Brexit. Even now some think Jezza will get a mythical deal that the EU would not offer.

Besides in what way would they be disenfranchised, they lost!

[jakswan]

They may have had their moment in the sun, albeit not so much here, but surely that was then - given there is a bunch of fairly hawkish Tories, and since UKIP are in such a bad way, it is hard to see that there is any space for them to occupy now.

Gordon if Parliament cannot reach a compromise on this and have to go back to the electorate, then I will take the view that they all need to be sacked and banned from ever standing again.

I'll consider a vote for any party that threatens the establishment, I'm not that extreme, like it or not there are some much nastier elements in our society.

We are playing hypotheticals, Scotland vote leave UK, Scottish parliament can't agree final deal, throws it back for another vote, Scotland votes remain.

You are seriously telling me that a significant amount of leavers in Scotland are not going to go fucking ballistic.

[Gordon]

Indeed - even hypothetically, when people are heavily invested in one course, and that course is then thwarted, then it it rankles.

Looking at the reports today though, about reservists being called up and 3,500 troops being made available, about £2bn being spent on 'no deal' contingency, about shortages of medicines and supplies, about supply problems for perishables and 'just in time' deliveries about access to information and limited access to a new satellite system that the UK has contributed to and uncertainty about whether a flight from Glasgow to Paris will be possible after next March - and all this a few months away!

It maybe that a reversal of Brexit would piss-off Leavers but that would be less of an issue than all the above, which will affect everyone. Hard to see where this is going though - The Guardian website is running a story tonight that May's efforts are now being focused on finding a way to get the DUP on board so that her deal passes: we will see, but if not then surely avoiding the above complications of 'no deal' would be better than annoying Leavers.

And yes, before you ask, if we ever get to Indyref2, then the lessons of Brexit need to be learned as regards proper preparation and if we ever get there, and if Brexit goes ahead, and especially on a 'no deal' basis, then the situation then may well be very different from 2014.   

[jakswan]

Indeed - even hypothetically, when people are heavily invested in one course, and that course is then thwarted, then it it rankles.

Looking at the reports today though, about reservists being called up and 3,500 troops being made available, about £2bn being spent on 'no deal' contingency, about shortages of medicines and supplies, about supply problems for perishables and 'just in time' deliveries about access to information and limited access to a new satellite system that the UK has contributed to and uncertainty about whether a flight from Glasgow to Paris will be possible after next March - and all this a few months away!

It maybe that a reversal of Brexit would piss-off Leavers but that would be less of an issue than all the above, which will affect everyone.

Jeez Gordon, Brexit is not going to be reversed without a referendum, there is zero chance of that happening, I do not know any MP holding that position.

It can be reversed with a referendum, that I don't think is likely, but it is at least possible.

So you can see how with a referendum it is going to be a problem we just disagree on the extent of the problem.

Can you see the point that you might hold, rather than have a referendum, which will either not solve the issue anyway (version of leave wins) or makes UK politics toxic for years to come, you are actually better off leaving with no deal.

Hard to see where this is going though - The Guardian website is running a story tonight that May's efforts are now being focused on finding a way to get the DUP on board so that her deal passes: we will see, but if not then surely avoiding the above complications of 'no deal' would be better than annoying Leavers.

Well, as Davey said there is a majority in Parliament for one thing and that is against no deal. A thick skin, dogged ability to survive, the PM just needs to call their bluff, we will get to a point where it is May's deal or No Deal. Say what you like about May she has an amazing ability to take flack.

And yes, before you ask, if we ever get to Indyref2, then the lessons of Brexit need to be learned as regards proper preparation and if we ever get there, and if Brexit goes ahead, and especially on a 'no deal' basis, then the situation then may well be very different from 2014.   

Yes hopefully sooner rather than later!

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, as Davey said there is a majority in Parliament for one thing and that is against no deal.

Sophistry in phrasing in the extreme - if we are talking about majorities in parliament against something, then there are loads - most obviously there is a majority against her deal.

The issue isn't what there is a majority in parliament against, but whether there is a majority in parliament for any specific way forward. I cannot see one for any of the 3 current options (deal, no deal, remain) with the decision taken by parliament directly. I cannot see logistically how there can be for any alternative 'deal' as that can only be hypothetic, undeliverable without the EU's approval. So frankly the only thing that there may be a majority in parliament for is that the decision needs to be settled by the people in a new vote.

The complexities of the whipping arrangements make this difficult currently - it would require Labour to change their official position, which I think they will do eventually. If there were a free vote, as has been suggested, then I think a new referendum gains a majority now.

And the dynamics on Labour have shifted since a seismic poll earlier this week. Remember Labour claim their first option is a general election so YouGov asked about voting intentions in a series of scenarios. Most specifically whether Labour in a GE simply supported brexit or supported a new referendum on brexit, on the assumption that the tories would push ahead with brexit without a referendum. If they supported a referendum they were neck and neck with the tories, if they failed to support a referendum their polling plummeted by 14% and they ended up on just 22%, in third place behind the LibDems.

[jakswan]

Sophistry in phrasing in the extreme - if we are talking about majorities in parliament against something, then there are loads - most obviously there is a majority against her deal.

The issue isn't what there is a majority in parliament against, but whether there is a majority in parliament for any specific way forward. I cannot see one for any of the 3 current options (deal, no deal, remain) with the decision taken by parliament directly. I cannot see logistically how there can be for any alternative 'deal' as that can only be hypothetic, undeliverable without the EU's approval. So frankly the only thing that there may be a majority in parliament for is that the decision needs to be settled by the people in a new vote.

The complexities of the whipping arrangements make this difficult currently - it would require Labour to change their official position, which I think they will do eventually. If there were a free vote, as has been suggested, then I think a new referendum gains a majority now.

And the dynamics on Labour have shifted since a seismic poll earlier this week. Remember Labour claim their first option is a general election so YouGov asked about voting intentions in a series of scenarios. Most specifically whether Labour in a GE simply supported brexit or supported a new referendum on brexit, on the assumption that the tories would push ahead with brexit without a referendum. If they supported a referendum they were neck and neck with the tories, if they failed to support a referendum their polling plummeted by 14% and they ended up on just 22%, in third place behind the LibDems.

Only a government can propose legislation, the default no deal or May's deal those are the only options.

[ProfessorDavey]

Only a government can propose legislation, the default no deal or May's deal those are the only options.

If that is your view then deal is the only option as it is the only approach the government is proposing currently.

However both no deal and remain (with or without referendum) are also deliverable options by the government and parliament (remember they have to approve to). And don't forget that there is already legislation on the table (linked to may's deal) - parliament may not be able to propose legislation, but they can amend it. So it is within parliament's control to amend the current legislation to caveat approval - either by ruling out no deal (for example a trigger to revoke article 50, or a request to extend) or to amend such that approval of the deal can only happen with public support in a referendum.

[jakswan]

If that is your view then deal is the only option as it is the only approach the government is proposing currently.

However both no deal and remain (with or without referendum) are also deliverable options by the government and parliament (remember they have to approve to). And don't forget that there is already legislation on the table (linked to may's deal) - parliament may not be able to propose legislation, but they can amend it. So it is within parliament's control to amend the current legislation to caveat approval - either by ruling out no deal (for example a trigger to revoke article 50, or a request to extend) or to amend such that approval of the deal can only happen with public support in a referendum.

Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?

You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?

You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.

In a hypothetical forced choice between just 2 of the 3 deliverable outcomes from where we are currently then I'd prefer May's deal by a considerable margin. But it is a forced choice between bad and downright appalling.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?

You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.

Given the choice between remain and no deal, what do you go for?

[jeremyp]

Sensing a bit of evasion there, if the choice is no deal or Mays deal, you vote May's deal right?

I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.

You wouldn't just have leave/remain on the referendum. Last time we did that it ended up in two and a half years of protracted squabbling. I would favour a two part question. The first question would be "should we accept the May deal?" The second question should be "if the answer to the first question is no, "should we stay or should we go?" Or you could do a three way STV between the available options.

Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.

You think if Remain wins another referendum, UKIP are going to get anywhere in the general election afterwards? Do you think the Leavers are mostly going to vote UKIP?  They are not. In the last election, the Lib Dems stood for an end to Brexit. Did they even get close to 48%?

Only the government can bring forward anything binding that stops Brexit, only vote of no confidence stops that, that isn't going to get majority.

There are quite a lot of Tory MPs who are against Brexit or at least a "no deal" Brexit. There enough to topple the government, at least.

[jeremyp]

Jeez Gordon, Brexit is not going to be reversed without a referendum,

I disagree. Brexit can be reversed if Theresa May says so. Whether it happens or not depends on whether May is prepared to sacrifice her political career to save the UK. Admittedly, the odds look slim.

I do not know any MP holding that position.

Do you know any MPs?

It can be reversed with a referendum, that I don't think is likely, but it is at least possible.

I think a referendum is a very plausible option at the moment. In fact it's the only way to let Parliament out of the current three way deadlock - well, excepting a general election.

or makes UK politics toxic for years to come

That ship has already sailed.

[jeremyp]

Only a government can propose legislation,

Not true.

[jakswan]

Given the choice between remain and no deal, what do you go for?

No deal.

[jakswan]

In a hypothetical forced choice between just 2 of the 3 deliverable outcomes from where we are currently then I'd prefer May's deal by a considerable margin. But it is a forced choice between bad and downright appalling.

As will all remainiacs, so May just as well run down the clock since they will have to vote it through in the end.

[jakswan]

That ship has already sailed.

Most of of your points have been raised by others and I've responded.

This is UK politics being toxic now, once again the AFD in Germany have 70 odd MPs, we have zero, stop crying wolf you will come to regret it.

[ProfessorDavey]

As will all remainiacs, so May just as well run down the clock since they will have to vote it through in the end.

But it isn't in her power as eventually she will have to bring the issue to parliament in a meaningful vote, which will allow parliament to take control. Don't forget that parliament has already amended the bill to mean that parliament decides what happens next if her deal is voted down. Parliament recognises that calling for an extension, revocation of article 50 (permanently or temporarily while other issues are sorted) and/or a referendum on the final deal or voting to prevent no deal are all options and once May's deal is voted down it is for parliament to choose the way forward. That's why May is delaying as she know that once her deal is defeated the power transfers from her and the government to parliament.

Do you really think that if May's deal is voted down on the 14th Jan and parliament will allow the clock to run down to a no deal. No a chance.

[Roses]

No deal.

The UK would be in dire straits  if that were to happen, by all accounts!

[ad_orientem]

The UK would be in dire straits  if that were to happen, by all accounts!

No,  not by ALL accounts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No,  not by ALL accounts.

Have you quite "finnish...ed?

[Roses]

No,  not by ALL accounts.

Business people seem to think it a very big mistake.