Brexit - the next steps

[Harrowby Hall]

... (except maybe in the unlikely event of Remain winning with a super-majority in 2nd ref.) 

Why "not  feasible"?  Particularly since the current mess is due to "Leave" getting a little more than one third of the electorate in an "advisory" referendum?

[Harrowby Hall]

For me, it's a poignant irony that, apart from a few exceedingly wealthy free-marketers who stand to profit handsomely from a deregulated Britain outside of the EU, the bulk of the leave voters seem to have been in favour of taking back sovereignty in one manner or another, a return to the one-man, one-vote idea, and that doing so was worth the short- to mid-term financial hit that would result.

That's a judgement call on a personal basis, one that I personally don't agree with.

The manner in which we've been lumped with a lying twat-waffle of a Prime Minister purely through the entirely British electoral rules shows that 'taking back control' lie to be the untruth that it always was. That follows the dismal performance of the voting reform project that resulted in the 'Alternative Vote' referendum in 2011.

There are so many different interpretations of 'taking back control' and 'sovereignty' that trying to come up with a single coherent argument to stand against all of them is impossible - and that's why Remain lost, because they fought one campaign with one goal, whereas Leave fought hundreds (legally and illegally) with different goals, but one stepping stone on the way... and now huge swathes of people who voted in favour of that first step are going to find out that the rest of their plan is never going to materialise.

O.

I think that this whole problem began with the Scottish Referendum. Not the referendum itself, but the prime minister's response to the result. I think that David Cameron's response should have been to establish some kind of commission to examine the constitutional structures and arrangements of the United Kingdom and to consider their appropriateness and validity in the 21st Century. He chose instead English Votes for English Laws.

We are stuck with system of constitutional arrangements which were designed for the first part of the 19th century. Even the small things are inadequate - like taking 10 minutes to conduct a single vote in the House of Commons.

Such a commission would need to examine all aspects govrenmental activity - local, central, regional, cultural, national, international. Had it been established Cameron would have ended his days feted as a great reformer, and there would have been no opportunity for reptiles like Farage to flourish.

[Gordon]

If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told

[Stranger]

If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told

It does look like the lying, incompetent narcissist PM, forced on us by 0.2% of the electorate (fuck democracy), is determined to drive us off the cliff. I dunno, maybe it has to happen in order to convince the people who've been taken in by the Brexit cult just what a bad idea it was and how it's in nobody's interest except (ironically) the rich elite that have lied to them.

Then we'll have to try and reverse it. Unfortunately a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily and an awful lot of money will have been wasted.

[Udayana]

Why "not  feasible"?  Particularly since the current mess is due to "Leave" getting a little more than one third of the electorate in an "advisory" referendum?

Suppose that there was a second referendum or even  an election before Johnson crashes us out: Assuming a roughly 52-48% result - in favour of remain this time, how can the UK expect to participate successfully in the EU from that point with such a deeply divided population?

Prior to the 2016 ref. only 11% thought membership of the EU was an important issue - now it is de facto the most important. We were able to continue in a fuzzy state for decades, but it will difficult to do so now we know that nearly half hate the EU (wrongly or not).

[Aruntraveller]

Suppose that there was a second referendum or even  an election before Johnson crashes us out: Assuming a roughly 52-48% result - in favour of remain this time, how can the UK expect to participate successfully in the EU from that point with such a deeply divided population?

Prior to the 2016 ref. only 11% thought membership of the EU was an important issue - now it is de facto the most important. We were able to continue in a fuzzy state for decades, but it will difficult to do so now we know that nearly half hate the EU (wrongly or not).

We are truly in a no-win situation. Once the reality of no-deal hits home, with job losses, inflation and lower living standards you will have roughly 48% saying "I told you so" and roughly 52% saying this isn't what you promised at all. A recipe for social destabilisation at a rapid rate. Never, even in the darkest years of Thatcher did I feel such utter despair.

The blind willingness to follow the folly of Boris et al by some on this board only increases that despair.

[Gordon]

There are reports that even if the government lost a vote of confidence the bold Boris would refuse to resign, and thereby creating an impasse that could be dragged out so as to allow Brexit to happen by default. I saw a comment somewhere that even if Westminster was paralysed it could be that, in view of the urgency, the Queen could intervene - it seems possible, albeit unlikely, but then the current situation is unique in the political history of the UK.

Some points taken from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power

To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind. Harold Wilson, leading a minority government in 1974, was advised Elizabeth II might refuse to dissolve Parliament if she could identify an alternative Prime Minister able to command a cross-party majority.

To summon and prorogue parliament

For example, in the hung parliament in 1974, the serving Prime Minister Edward Heath attempted to remain in power but was unable to form a working majority. The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not an overall majority, to attempt to form a government. Subsequently, Wilson asked that if the government were defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, the Queen would grant a dissolution, which she agreed to.

Since it seems, from reports, that part of the 'no deal' plan is to ensure that there is no time for a GE before 31st October, because parliament is in recess, could be dealt with if the Queen could be persuaded (not sure by whom) to summon parliament to allow a vote of no confidence and then dissolve it if the government loses.

It seems unlikely the Queen would get directly involved, but these are unusual times. Get some popcorn in now, since if Brexit happens there might be none in the shops.   

[Nearly Sane]

This blog was written a few years ago but has some interesting stuff on the effects of the Fixed Term Parliament Act


https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-fixed-term-parliament-sic-act-and-professor-colin-talbot/

[jeremyp]

As you know jp, whatever change is made involving this scale of change will involve taking an overall decision, it' pretty obvious both our estimations are not going to the same ever, like I've said before this kind of thing or disagreement was nationwide thus a referendum.

ippy

Please answer my question. Can you name one aspect of the EU that has disadvantaged you personally?

Actually, I'll widen it slightly. Can you name one aspect of being outside the EU that will advantage you personally?

[jeremyp]

I am for Remain, mostly for political rather than economic reasons, but the UK remaining in the EU is no longer a feasible proposition (except maybe in the unlikely event of Remain winning with a super-majority in 2nd ref.) 

I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.

[jeremyp]

If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told

It should tell the Brexiteers something that the EU seems to be completely transparent. We know exactly where they stand and what their position is. It's the British government that is lying to us, telling us one thing while telling the EU negotiations something else.

"Take back control" is looking really hollow at the moment.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.

except in the current climate that would seem likely to lead to riots.

[jeremyp]

except in the current climate that would seem likely to lead to riots.

Personally, I don't think giving in to threats of violence is a good way to run a country.

[Nearly Sane]

Personally, I don't think giving in to threats of violence is a good way to run a country.

Doesn't mean that just stopping Brexit is feasible.

[jeremyp]

Doesn't mean that just stopping Brexit is feasible.

It could be stopped tomorrow by a sane prime minister. It's certainly feasible. It isn't likely because we don't have a sane prime minister.

[Udayana]

I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.

Of-course, but how are you going to get and keep such a PM in power? How could they build sufficient positive support for EU membership and participation for the long term?

[Nearly Sane]

It could be stopped tomorrow by a sane prime minister. It's certainly feasible. It isn't likely because we don't have a sane prime minister.

Feasibility and possibility and/or likely are not the same. It's not feasible for there to be such a PM, nor is it feasible for that to pass through the Commons currently.

[jeremyp]

Of-course, but how are you going to get and keep such a PM in power?

You're not. If more politicians put the country ahead of their careers, we would not be in this mess.

How could they build sufficient positive support for EU membership and participation for the long term?

Banning Boris Johnson from writing lying articles about the EU would be a start.

[jeremyp]

Feasibility and possibility and/or likely are not the same. It's not feasible for there to be such a PM, nor is it feasible for that to pass through the Commons currently.

You're right, they are not the same, but it is you who has got the meaning the wrong way around, not me.

[Nearly Sane]

You're right, they are not the same, but it is you who has got the meaning the wrong way around, not me.

We are talking about what is feasible here. Where am I wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

You're not. If more politicians put the country ahead of their careers, we would not be in this mess.
Banning Boris Johnson from writing lying articles about the EU would be a start.

nothing about the feasibility.

[Nearly Sane]

The backstop with added Derry Girls

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1157276169944911873.html

[jeremyp]

We are talking about what is feasible here. Where am I wrong?

I can’t be arsed to deal with yet another one of your stupid irrelevant pedant arguments. So let’s agree to disagree and talk about the substantial issues rather than your interpretation of the word “feasible”.

[jeremyp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49280689

I want to say he's a bone headed idiot who doesn't understand what is going on, but I feel that he actually does and he is just trying to lay the blame at the door of the EU.

[Nearly Sane]

What a cunning plan!

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-gove-discussed-closing-banks-the-day-after-no-deal-brexit-2019-8?r=US&IR=T