Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

By that measure I can take the votes of any Labour MP who has said that having another referendum would be damaging as voting the other way.

I'm not talking about 'talking about a referendum' - I'm talking about actually voting in parliament to prevent no deal - and doing so in defiance of their own party. Each one of the people I mentioned voted in favour of the Grieve amendment aimed at blocking a no deal outcome.

When (or if) a vote comes to parliament on a second referendum, we will see how those Labour MPs actually vote, but that hasn't happened yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

No not sure, just think its likely, a no deal means a border and makes it much harder road to a United Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland." And the GFA is an international agreement covered by international law.

Therefore if a no deal brexit and the evidence of the recent polling remains - i.e. that because of that no deal brexit a majority in NI would prefer unification rather than remaining in the UK under no deal conditions then the UK government is actually obliged under international law to hold a vote on unification (this would require separate votes in NI and the republic in which both would need to vote for unification for it to be mandated). If the UK government blocked this it would be a matter for international legal decision.

Maybe you'd missed that one as well.

[Aruntraveller]

Did you not watch the video of Bill Maher?

File under Project Reality.

OIC. We are only allowed to believe dire warnings when they fit your political mindset.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Hold my hands up on the first one - but then virtually everyone thought that remain would win, including the leaders of the two leave campaigns. Not on the others as on art50 my argument was that the Gina Miller outcome (if she won) made it more difficult and less likely to get art50 triggered by end march not that it couldn't happen. Likewise on gen election - my point was that May couldn't just call an election (as used to happen) because of the FTPA this required parliament to agree which wasn't guaranteed. On DUP does anyone have a clue where they actually stand on the single market - just in the last few weeks they seem to be edging toward EEA membership, which would mean single market, and bed fellows of your good self.

But while we are on being spectacularly wrong in predictions, how about this on from 21st July 2016:

'We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed'

Remember that one Jakswan

[jakswan]

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland." And the GFA is an international agreement covered by international law.

Therefore if a no deal brexit and the evidence of the recent polling remains - i.e. that because of that no deal brexit a majority in NI would prefer unification rather than remaining in the UK under no deal conditions then the UK government is actually obliged under international law to hold a vote on unification (this would require separate votes in NI and the republic in which both would need to vote for unification for it to be mandated). If the UK government blocked this it would be a matter for international legal decision.

Maybe you'd missed that one as well.

Nope, knew about that.

[jakswan]

OIC. We are only allowed to believe dire warnings when they fit your political mindset.

How do you conclude that given what I wrote?

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope, knew about that.

Then how can you conclude that a no deal brexit (which shifts public opinion markedly in favour of unification as has been shown in polls) means that unification is less likely.

[jakswan]

Hold my hands up on the first one - but then virtually everyone thought that remain would win, including the leaders of the two leave campaigns. Not on the others as on art50 my argument was that the Gina Miller outcome (if she won) made it more difficult and less likely to get art50 triggered by end march not that it couldn't happen. Likewise on gen election - my point was that May couldn't just call an election (as used to happen) because of the FTPA this required parliament to agree which wasn't guaranteed. On DUP does anyone have a clue where they actually stand on the single market - just in the last few weeks they seem to be edging toward EEA membership, which would mean single market, and bed fellows of your good self.

But while we are on being spectacularly wrong in predictions, how about this on from 21st July 2016:

'We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed'

Remember that one Jakswan

Oh we are doing that are we.

The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10251.msg615491#msg615491

What actually happened? Record levels of employment!

Yet you constantly sneer when we are having a discussion, its not a good look imho. 

[Gordon]

My guess, for what it is worth, is that there will be a referendum because:

a) May's deal will fail,
b) Parliament won't through its own inaction allow a 'no deal' exit to happen by default,
c) the DUP won't support a no confidence in the government motion, since currently they've got a kind of direct rule in NI that they wouldn't want to expose to a GE,
d) therefore a GE won't happen over Brexit,
e) there is no opportunity before March to negotiate any other form of Brexit, and the EU won't play anyway,
f) so unless Westminster approve May's deal, which is unlikely, and without a GE, then a referendum is the only alternative to 'no deal', and gives May the only hope of her deal being supported (by the electorate if not MPs).

Therefore, to break the Westminster deadlock, and given the rescind Article 50 option, a referendum involving Remain, May's Deal or No Deal.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[jakswan]

I have bet against Brexit happening end March and traded out when it was odds on.

I'm now betting the other way and the odds have flipped.

Reasons already explained, I made money on Brexit, early election, Trump getting elected, art 50 being triggered.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh we are doing that are we.

The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10251.msg615491#msg615491

Nice quote - why don't you take it up with its author, George Osborne. Why no "" - the implication being that those were my words, they weren't they were his and in my original post I made that clear as you can see from the link to my post and from their to the source material.

[Gordon]

Have to laugh at Andrea Leadsome as quoted on the BBC: 'To have a second referendum would unfortunately be going back to people and telling them they have got it wrong and they needed to try again'.

Listen up Andrea - the people did get it wrong, since they didn't understand what they were voting for, and now they do know some of us think they should have the opportunity to change their minds if they wish to do so: what is she frightened of?

[ad_orientem]

Have to laugh at Andrea Leadsome as quoted on the BBC: 'To have a second referendum would unfortunately be going back to people and telling them they have got it wrong and they needed to try again'.

Listen up Andrea - the people did get it wrong, since they didn't understand what they were voting for, and now they do know some of us think they should have the opportunity to change their minds if they wish to do so: what is she frightened of?

Sorry, the people did know. The question was in plain English.

[Gordon]

Sorry, the people did know. The question was in plain English.

The question may have been, but the consequences weren't since the Brexit enthusiasts didn't actually bother to explain what these might be (if we ignore the lies on the sides of buses) - and now, far too late, we do know, and that alone justifies a 2nd referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

What actually happened? Record levels of employment!

Actually the report made the following predictions over the 2 years following a brexit vote, with each compared the the trend-line forecast on the status quo, i.e. remain.

Change compared to forecast of vote to remain
GDP -3.6%
CPI inflation +2.3%
Unemployment +1.6%
Average real wages -2.8%
House prices -10%
Sterling exchange rate index -12%

In fact pretty well all have come to pass, give or take:

https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/03/brexit-is-estimated-to-have-wiped-2percent-off-the-uks-gdp-even-before-the-exit-date.html

Also to note that the UK stock market has massively underperformed, we've gone from top of G7 on growth to bottom and inward investment into business has flatlined.

Interestingly the one element that seems to have bucked the trend is unemployment (hmm wonder why you picked this as your only example). But this has been perplexing economists for some while - so during the 2008/9 recession there also wasn't a rise in unemployment as would be expected - something odd is going on. What is clear is that the jobs are poorer quality with people having less earning power than they would have done.

So overwhelmingly the predictions have come true. And this is, of course, before we have even left.

[jakswan]

Nice quote - why don't you take it up with its author, George Osborne. Why no "" - the implication being that those were my words, they weren't they were his and in my original post I made that clear as you can see from the link to my post and from their to the source material.

I linked to the quote, totally transparent, you quoted directly from it.

Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:

'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'

You ended with 'Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month. '

If you worked for me and were so wrong there would be one person losing their job.

[ProfessorDavey]

'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'

Now I see you have included quotation marks - is this the nearest I will get to an apology for misrepresenting a quote from George Osborne as being a quote from me.

A clear statement that the quote above is not mine and perhaps an apology for implying it was will suffice.

[jakswan]

Now I see you have included quotation marks - is this the nearest I will get to an apology for misrepresenting a quote from George Osborne as being a quote from me.

A clear statement that the quote above is not mine and perhaps an apology for implying it was will suffice.

Nope, no misrepresentation on my part just me showing you up to be  the pretentious Davey we know so well. 😀

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope, no misrepresentation on my part just me showing you up to be  the pretentious Davey we know so well. 😀

Nope clear representation.

In a response to a post in which I posted a quote written by you in 2016 you retorted 'Oh we are doing that are we' followed with a quote which was in a post from me also from 2016. The clear implication being that the quote was my words.

Problem is that quote wasn't mine, but George Osborne's - something you failed to make clear in your post. Misrepresentation (actually of both me and George Osborne).

[Roses]

Jakswan might be singing from a different hymn sheet if Brexit is as damaging to the UK as many of us believe it to be.

[wigginhall]

Peter Kellner in the Guardian has an interesting poll.  A question asking about May's deal and Remain has a 59/41% split for Remain.  A question on a general election shows the Labour vote haemhorraging to 22% if they support Brexit.  No doubt the govt (and Corbyn) will rubbish this,  but I bet MPs will be studying it.

No link, Google "Kellner Brexit poll".

[jakswan]

Nope clear representation.

Thanks.

In a response to a post in which I posted a quote written by you in 2016 you retorted 'Oh we are doing that are we' followed with a quote which was in a post from me also from 2016. The clear implication being that the quote was my words.

The implication was that you thought that voting leave would result in unemployment growing by 500,000, which did not happen and now have been proven to be wrong.

Problem is that quote wasn't mine, but George Osborne's - something you failed to make clear in your post. Misrepresentation (actually of both me and George Osborne).

So are suggesting you didn't actually think unemployment would grow by 500,000 following a vote to leave and were lying at the time?

I know its difficult for you to accept, but sometimes Davey when you predict the political future you are a little off.

Here is another little gem.

Trump ramped up the rhetoric to get elected. In office he will be much more moderate.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11518.msg646785#msg646785

Not claiming I'm perfect but I'm encouraging you to tone it down a little.

[ProfessorDavey]

The implication was that you thought that voting leave would result in unemployment growing by 500,000, which did not happen and now have been proven to be wrong.

Further misrepresentation - the report was about the effect of a vote to leave baselined against what was likely to happen if we voted to remain. So you cannot say this did not happen without comparing the trendlines that have occurred over the past couple of years with what would likely have happened were we to have voted to remain - the best approach being to look at the trend in the 2 years or so up to June 2016 and to see whether there has been a marked shift in that trend linked to the leave vote.

Have you done this Jakswan?

[jeremyp]

How do you conclude that given what I wrote?

Well you keep telling us that the dire outcomes predicted by Remainers are "project fear" but lately your chief argument against doing democracy (i.e. a third referendum) is that the far right wing would be resurgent. That looks like project fear to me.

[jeremyp]

f) so unless Westminster approve May's deal, which is unlikely, and without a GE, then a referendum is the only alternative to 'no deal', and gives May the only hope of her deal being supported (by the electorate if not MPs).

Incorrect. May can unilaterally rescind Brexit "while we sort the mess out". We'll have to do something like that anyway even if we do have a referendum because we need time to organise. it.