Brexit - the next steps

[wigginhall]

Losing with integrity is losing. No one is coming out of this with a purity pass. I'm not arguing that the LDs are particularly in the wrong here but there really isn't much point in saying you'll do anything to stop no deal Brexit and then saying you won't do that. It's all a bit Meat Loaf.

Rafael Behr is saying that in the Guardian.  Ironic that some Tories seem to be meeting Corbyn, but Swinson is preserving her purity.  Better dead than red.

[ippy]

I didn't intimate that in my post - I asked you a question, which you ignored.     

I have said quite plainly why several times why, perhaps if you go back on some of my previous posts?

ippy

[Stranger]

I have said quite plainly why several times why, perhaps if you go back on some of my previous posts?

You haven't (that I've seen, and I'm not the only one who's been asking) said what practical negative impact the EU has on you, or the country. You mentioned the court and you mentioned this "federal Europe" but those are abstract issues of principle - it doesn't say in what way they impact you (or even the country) so much and so negatively, that you'd risk people's jobs, severe economic damage, and the integrity of the UK, to get rid of them.

As I said, there are plenty of things I'd like to change about the UK and the way it's governed (monarchy, HoL, no written constitution, first past the post) but I'd not take the kind of risks a no-deal Brexit entails to get rid of them.

[ippy]

You haven't (that I've seen, and I'm not the only one who's been asking) said what practical negative impact the EU has on you, or the country. You mentioned the court and you mentioned this "federal Europe" but those are abstract issues of principle - it doesn't say in what way they impact you (or even the country) so much and so negatively, that you'd risk people's jobs, severe economic damage, and the integrity of the UK, to get rid of them.

As I said, there are plenty of things I'd like to change about the UK and the way it's governed (monarchy, HoL, no written constitution, first past the post) but I'd not take the kind of risks a no-deal Brexit entails to get rid of them.

Right again on very similar lines where have you seen any leavers or remainers agreeing other than the very odd one or two you'll always get that confound the norm?

It's not a split it's a gulf of a difference, it wouldn't matter whatever I wrote here about my favouring leave, I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.

The point is the winners should have the day and that's it and I want to say goodbye to the EU, the very thought of remaining in the EU repels me and the handing on of that lot to our children forever in just the way, I'll assume, you take the opposite view.

I don't see remainers as bad people or in the least bit dippy, just wrong, I hope this is the way you see it obviously with your opposing view to mine.

Regards ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

   
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.

Yes. And the irony here is that the one single qualification for acceptability for a whole swathe of recent Conservative Party leaders was that their name was NOT Kenneth Clark. The extent of the right-wing disease that has infected the party for the last couple of decades, which lead to (for god's sake) Iain Duncan Smith as party leader, is evident in the current situation.  Had Ken Clark been party leader we would now be in a different place.

[Stranger]

Right again on very similar lines where have you seen any leavers or remainers agreeing other than the very odd one or two you'll always get that confound the norm?

It's not a split it's a gulf of a difference, it wouldn't matter whatever I wrote here about my favouring leave, I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.

The point is the winners should have the day and that's it and I want to say goodbye to the EU, the very thought of remaining in the EU repels me and the handing on of that lot to our children forever in just the way, I'll assume, you take the opposite view.

I don't see remainers as bad people or in the least bit dippy, just wrong, I hope this is the way you see it obviously with your opposing view to mine.

So..... you still won't answer the question.

You either can't or won't try to rationally defend your position. When people won't even try to defend it rationally, do you not see why Brexit gets compared to a cult?

As for the point about children, you do understand that the younger generations voted to remain? This is old people imposing their will on the younger generations who are the ones who will have to live with it - or reverse it.

"Age is the other great fault line. Under-25s were more than twice as likely to vote Remain (71%) than Leave (29%). Among over-65s the picture is almost the exact opposite, as 64% of over-65s voted to Leave while only 36% voted to Remain."

How Britain voted at the EU referendum

[Gordon]

Follow-up regard Jo Swinson's (who happens to be my MP) initially reaction to Corbyn's letter - perhaps, to follow on from NS's earlier point, she has to do a reverse Meatloaf and decide to 'do that' to remove the prospect of no-deal, and hopefully Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/jo-swinson-brexit-jeremy-corbyn

[Gordon]

I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.

You're still not getting this, ippy.

The only reason there was a referendum in 2016 was because the Eurosceptic lunatic fringe of the Tory party had plagued the last 3 Tory PM's (Thatcher, Major and Cameron), and the latter thought he could use a referendum as a sop to them and that the electorate would vote to stay in the EU, so at a stroke he would have sidelined said lunatic fringe - only to find that some sections of the electorate (more where you are than where I am) naively fell for the Brexit lies and, of course, nobody had thought through what would happen if they did.

That current events are as they are confirms the madness of both Cameron's referendum ploy and May subsequent approach, whose incompetence and 'party-first' approach has produced the utter chaos we see today - with a liar as PM and the Tory party infected by Brexit zealotry, and the irony here is that there was no pressing public demand back in 2015.

Brexit is a Tory-made mess, and we need to be rid of both it and them.   

[Nearly Sane]

I can't help but think that the Harman/Clarke idea is the mother and father of all kludges. The whole idea of a government of national unity (GNU) which is specifically made up of Remainers feels not that G-Nice, and a G-likely to lead to G-problems. Many people will be G-nashing their teeth at them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't help but think that the Harman/Clarke idea is the mother and father of all kludges. The whole idea of a government of national unity (GNU) which is specifically made up of Remainers feels not that G-Nice, and a G-likely to lead to G-problems. Many people will be G-nashing their teeth at them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612

I think the point of an interim government (call it what you like) if remove no-deal as an option (unless there is a direct mandate from the public) and to put the final decision back to the people. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why it needs to be led by people (and I think co-leaders is a good idea) that you'd have confidence would achieve the latter, but not try to push on other political agendas. For that reason Harman/Clarke seems sensible, while I'd have concerns about other possible interims, most notably Corbyn who I suspect would not be able to achieve the 'nothing less' but would not hold to 'nothing more'.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the point of an interim government (call it what you like) if remove no-deal as an option and to put the final decision back to the people. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why it needs to be lead by people (and I think co-leaders is a good idea) that you'd have confidence would achieve the latter, but not try to push on other political agendas. For that reason Harman/Clarke seems sensible, while I'd have concerns about other possible interims, most notably Corbyn who I suspect would not be able to achieve the 'nothing less' but would not hold to 'nothing more'.

This just reads like a Remain point of view about what's reasonable. It's going to look dreadful to those not in agreement with the idea. All those who were complaining about Johnson being elected to PM by a charabanc of racist OAPs are then going to have dual PMs who are not elected by any party. And if you are in govt, you can't prevent events - what happens if there is a major crack down in Hong Kong?

[ProfessorDavey]

This just reads like a Remain point of view about what's reasonable. It's going to look dreadful to those not in agreement with the idea. All those who were complaining about Johnson being elected to PM by a charabanc of racist OAPs are then going to have dual PMs who are not elected by any party. And if you are in govt, you can't prevent events - what happens if there is a major crack down in Hong Kong?

Harman/Clarke supported in a VOC in parliament to be joint interim PM would have no less democratic credibility than Johnson being supported by just 160 Tory MPs and then a tiny electorate of Tory members (none of whom can claim the mandate of being elected themselves).

And yes it is a remain position, of course and I agree that the notion of a government of national unity is mere spin - currently the country is completely split and nothing will heal that except time. However worst possible think to ensure that disunity persists is to implement a brexit or to revoke without it being clear that there is a direct mandate from the people for that exact plan at the time of its implementation. Leaving with no deal (or even a variant of May's deal) claiming there to be a mandate from a vote over 3 years ago that never specified either of those options in detail will do nothing to heal those divisions.

[Nearly Sane]

Harman/Clarke supported in a VOC in parliament to be joint interim PM would have no less democratic credibility than Johnson being supported by just 160 Tory MPs and then a tiny electorate of Tory members (none of whom can claim the mandate of being elected themselves).

And yes it is a remain position, of course and I agree that the notion of a government of national unity is mere spin - currently the country is completely split and nothing will heal that except time. However worst possible think to ensure that disunity persists is to implement a brexit or to revoke without it being clear that there is a direct mandate from the people for that exact plan at the time of its implementation. Leaving with no deal (or even a variant of May's deal) claiming there to be a mandate from a vote over 3 years ago that never specified either of those options in detail will do nothing to heal those divisions.

  Essentially though that's just whataboutery - because another action is shite doesn't make this action any better.

[ProfessorDavey]

  Essentially though that's just whataboutery - because another action is shite doesn't make this action any better.

The situation is shite regardless - all possible routes out of where we are now have major negative effects, both on the country economically and socially and on confidence in the democratic process. It will take a long time to rebuild both - will will remain a country torn assunder (and potentially actually split) for years if not decades.

There is also the issue of the continuing process of brexit - none of the brexit options are an end, they are merely the start of the much more complex negotiations of a permanent relationship with the EU. No deal crashes the economy but we will still be starting likely 7 years (the average time to a trade deal) negotiations with the EU. We've only just started the process. A transition deal smooths matters in the short term but we will still be starting on years of negotiation. In both cases the government will remain gridlocked with just a single dominating issue and will continue to lack capacity to deal with the issues that most of us actually care about.

While it wouldn't prevent the ongoing disunity and splits, the only thing which allows the UK to move beyond the endless debate and negotiation over relationships with the EU is to remain. And if that is the decision of a majority in a confirmatory referendum against known brexit option (or options) which can be implemented immediately then that would go some way to mitigate the anger as it would be clear that the final decision had a democratic mandate.

[Nearly Sane]

The situation is shite regardless - all possible routes out of where we are now have major negative effects, both on the country economically and socially and on confidence in the democratic process. It will take a long time to rebuild both - will will remain a country torn assunder (and potentially actually split) for years if not decades.

There is also the issue of the continuing process of brexit - none of the brexit options are an end, they are merely the start of the much more complex negotiations of a permanent relationship with the EU. No deal crashes the economy but we will still be starting likely 7 years (the average time to a trade deal) negotiations with the EU. We've only just started the process. A transition deal smooths matters in the short term but we will still be starting on years of negotiation. In both cases the government will remain gridlocked with just a single dominating issue and will continue to lack capacity to deal with the issues that most of us actually care about.

While it wouldn't prevent the ongoing disunity and splits, the only thing which allows the UK to move beyond the endless debate and negotiation over relationships with the EU is to remain. And if that is the decision of a majority in a confirmatory referendum against known brexit option (or options) which can be implemented immediately then that would go some way to mitigate the anger as it would be clear that the final decision had a democratic mandate.

This reads as wishful thinking. Let's suppose that 52/48 vote to remain. First of all if you think the last referendum was divisive then you ain't seen nothing yet. In the event of a u turn with a referendum which was not part of the original plan, it's not going to be forgotten by those who voted Leave.

I agree there isn't a good place to go to here, but I think you miss the anger that such a decision will cause.

[ProfessorDavey]

This reads as wishful thinking. Let's suppose that 52/48 vote to remain. First of all if you think the last referendum was divisive then you ain't seen nothing yet. In the event of a u turn with a referendum which was not part of the original plan, it's not going to be forgotten by those who voted Leave.

I agree there isn't a good place to go to here, but I think you miss the anger that such a decision will cause.

Yup it will be horrible and lead to simmering resentment for years. But so will taking the UK out with no deal, which has no democratic mandate whatsoever. I'd argue that the latter will be worse as not only will it lack any kind of democratic legitimacy, it will also direct affect many people's lives.

And don't forget that the 2016 referendum was advisory - the government and parliament could have enacted a binding referendum, but they didn't - so certainly in a constitutional sense there is complete legitimacy in putting the final deal back to the people (indeed there is legal and constitutional legitimacy for the government or parliament to simply revoke although I don't think that politically that would be a smart idea). And by the way if a confirmatory referendum involved tow (or three) options which are clear and immediately deliverable (e.g. deal, no-deal, revoke) then I'd be happy for that vote to be binding. I'd be pissed off if a leave option won, but I wouldn't be able to argue lack of democratic legitimacy. However the 2016 vote cannot be taken to imply a mandate for any specific brexit option and certainly not for no deal as there was absolutely no suggestion from anyone in 2016 that voting for brexit mean a no deal crash-out.

In a broader sense I find the notion that more democracy is somehow anti-democratic bizarre. It is an accepted part of our democratic process. We vote, and in a few years time we vote again - democracy isn't an event ossified in time, it is an ongoing process.

[Gordon]

My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.

Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.

It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.

Something has to give.

[ProfessorDavey]

My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.

Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.

It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.

Something has to give.

I agree with most of that. That said I cannot see how a GE will necessarily unlock the gridlock - there is no reason to suspect that the outcome would provide any greater clarity in parliament than we have now.

I think the most pressing matter is to formalise the parliamentary position against no deal - this happened in the Spring but was limited to a particular timeframe. Parliament needs to be allowed to take control of the parliamentary business again to pass a motion to require the government to request an extension in any circumstances where a deal has not been agreed by parliament. Of course this cannot assure is will happen as the EU could request that request, but it would change the dynamics such that the default if a deal isn't agreed is the request of an extension rather than no deal. If that happens then the next (and more tricky part, due to parliamentary numbers) will be to legislate for a confirmatory referendum to happen in that extension phase. Is the EU sees that a referendum will occur on the final deal then I think they will certainly grant an extension.

[Nearly Sane]

My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.

Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.

It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.

Something has to give.

I think the problem with Corbyn's idea was having the GE before legislating for the referendum, as who knows what would happen in a GE. That said as you point out then the Govt effectively then has to fold after the referendum but that creates a further problem that we could then have another disjunct on the referendum result and the GE result, in which case what happens?

[ippy]

So..... you still won't answer the question.

You either can't or won't try to rationally defend your position. When people won't even try to defend it rationally, do you not see why Brexit gets compared to a cult?

As for the point about children, you do understand that the younger generations voted to remain? This is old people imposing their will on the younger generations who are the ones who will have to live with it - or reverse it.

"Age is the other great fault line. Under-25s were more than twice as likely to vote Remain (71%) than Leave (29%). Among over-65s the picture is almost the exact opposite, as 64% of over-65s voted to Leave while only 36% voted to Remain."

How Britain voted at the EU referendum

What is it that you can't see about the fact we're never going to agree and we no doubt think each others side of this brexit divide as a crazy misinformed way of thinking, it's a impasse so therefore take a vote/referendum the winner should have taken all.

We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice? After all leaving the EU won the day.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

What is it that you can't see about the fact we're never going to agree and we no doubt think each others side of this brexit divide as a crazy misinformed way of thinking, it's a impasse so therefore take a vote/referendum the winner should have taken all.

We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice? After all leaving the EU won the day.

Regards ippy

But simply the demographic shift of older people dying and younger people attaining voting age since June 2016 means that without a single person changing their minds that majority for leave vanished months ago. Actually Jan 2019 was the crossover month.

So are you really implying that you should implement something that you can be confident no longer has a mandate without anyone changing their minds. You could, of course, actually find out whether in 2019 a brexit deal or a no-deal brexit is the 'will of the people' in a confirmatory referendum. Why are you so scared of democracy Ippy.

[wigginhall]

I think democracy now means never being able to change your mind.  Cute, eh?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think democracy now means never being able to change your mind.  Cute, eh?

It goes even further than that as the deal and no-deal currently on offer weren't on offer in 2016, so we aren't asking people whether they've changed their minds, but asking whether they prefer the withdrawal agreement or no deal to what we currently have for the very first time.

[Stranger]

We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice?

I can only conclude that you have no confidence in being able to rationally defend your position. Otherwise, why to you think you'd be target practice? Why wouldn't it be you using me for target practice?

After all leaving the EU won the day.

And, as has been pointed out, what is on offer now is nothing like the picture painted by the leave campaign and (as prof reminded us) the demographics alone would mean that we are now a remain supporting country if nobody at all has changed their mind (source).

[ippy]

But simply the demographic shift of older people dying and younger people attaining voting age since June 2016 means that without a single person changing their minds that majority for leave vanished months ago. Actually Jan 2019 was the crossover month.

So are you really implying that you should implement something that you can be confident no longer has a mandate without anyone changing their minds. You could, of course, actually find out whether in 2019 a brexit deal or a no-deal brexit is the 'will of the people' in a confirmatory referendum. Why are you so scared of democracy Ippy.

Why should I be so scared for democracy should have been your question, we're never going to agree on this one Proff, console yourself listening to the BBC they're completely on your side as is most of the media.

Regards, ippy.