Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

As NS says there is no way out of this now that isn't going to cause ructions.

Since any form of Brexit, be it soft, hard or no deal, is going to disadvantage all of us, and even if it happens no doubt some Brexit supporters might find that that whatever form of Brexit finally emerges isn't to their personal taste, and of course many don't support Brexit at all in any form, then my preference would be to end up with A50 being revoked: yes it will annoy some, but no matter what the outcome Brexit has proved so divisive it seems that some will be annoyed anyway so maybe we have to see that annoyance play outwhile avoiding the downsides of Brexit (there are no upsides of Brexit) by staying in the EU.

The current situation is made worse by a PM who is an incompetent (like the rest of his government) liar - indeed he is so useless that he can't even lie with competence.   

Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.

[Nearly Sane]

Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.

Do Leavers' protests?

[Nearly Sane]

B) supporting something by voting for it isn't the same as campaigning for it. Corbyn seems to want Brexit but isn't against remaining in if that's what the majority want, so I think he's on the right track.

It would help discussion if you didn't insert words not used. If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?

[Gordon]

A perspective on yesterday's events in the Supreme Court from John Crace.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/legal-defence-of-prorogation-crashes-burns-and-then-fades-into-silence

[Aruntraveller]

Do Leavers' protests?

I suppose that depends on your definition of protest, but I don't recall a leave supporting MP being murdered.

[Gordon]

The submission to the Supreme Court on behalf of John Major is fairly damning regarding Johnson - no great surprise there.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's bizarre for a number of reasons, first of all the idea that they might get elected on a much smaller % than the 52 % who voted leave, and then use the very vagaries of an electoral system that they have campaigned against to decide to ignore that vote, secondly touting the idea that even if a Scottish Govt were to be elected on a proportional system with a majority that there would be no mandate for a second  indy ref.

I'm not sure that they've articulated it as such, but it seems to me that the Lib Dems are effectively making their position into a de facto second referendum: a vote for us is a vote for remain, a vote for others is something else. In the (admittedly unlikely) event they won, that wouldn't be "ignoring the vote" but rather carrying out the result of the vote that superseded it.

As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.       

[Christine]

If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?

As you have also said, this is an intractable mess.  I think that Labour agreeing a deal with the EU is possible, but I wouldn't care if they just put May's deal as the other option in a new referendum.  That deal was scuppered by the ERG and DUP, so it must have something going for it.  Corbyn is sensible to say he wouldn't campaign for one thing or the other in a new referendum, in case he has to implement whatever decision is made. 

Whatever Corbyn says or does is automatically disparaged by most news outlets as far as I can tell.  I've said it before, the idea that the current Labour front bench would do more damage to this country than the Tories and their enablers have done over the last 9 years is ridiculous.  Corbyn might be a poor leader, but I'm not sure how we'd really know that, given he's spent most of his time in the role fending off attacks from the right-wing of his own party and faced relentless and mostly dishonest criticism from the Murdoch media and the BBC. 

Personally, I'd prefer Corbyn to stand down and for Keir Starmer, or somebody else with less hostage-to-fortune history encumbering them, to stand unopposed, but if that's not going to happen, Labour are still the best hope.  At least Corbyn seems to find it hard to be dishonest, unlike the current PM.

Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.

I don't suppose you were serious, but the threat of violence from Leavers is no argument or justification for leaving.  Pandering to thugs and bullies is never a good idea. Look where it got Theresa May.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'm not sure that they've articulated it as such, but it seems to me that the Lib Dems are effectively making their position into a de facto second referendum: a vote for us is a vote for remain, a vote for others is something else. In the (admittedly unlikely) event they won, that wouldn't be "ignoring the vote" but rather carrying out the result of the vote that superseded it.

As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.     

But due to FPTP any vote isn't a referendum - if you can get elected to a majority withg 35% claiming that supersedes the referendum seems both wrong and constitutionally illiterate

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose that depends on your definition of protest, but I don't recall a leave supporting MP being murdered.

It doesn't seem to make much sense to regard 52% of those that voted as equivalent to a murderrer

[Christine]

Pandering to thugs and bullies is never a good idea. Look where it got Theresa May.

Just to clarify, I was referring to her self-pitying snivelling in Downing Street, not the £3m+ castle in Scotland. 

Speaking of £3m residences, I see the problem of homeless people sleeping in doorways in my city has been addressed at last.  The doorways have been boarded up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But due to FPTP any vote isn't a referendum - if you can get elected to a majority withg 35% claiming that supersedes the referendum seems both wrong and constitutionally illiterate

I know, but that's how FPTP works - even if a Gov't is elected with 49% of the vote it can carry out its manifesto commitments regardless of what the 51% might want. If the Lib Dems said "we'll treat the GE as if it was a second referendum, vote for us or not on that basis" I'd have thought the real referendum would therefore legitimately have been superseded.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I know, but that's how FPTP works - even if a Gov't is elected with 49% of the vote it can carry out its manifesto commitments regardless of what the 51% might want. If the Lib Dems said "we'll treat the GE as if it was a second referendum, vote for us or not on that basis" I'd have thought the real referendum would therefore legitimately have been superseded.   

Just seems enormously hypocritical.

[Spud]

It would help discussion if you didn't insert words not used. If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?

Because you are negotiating it because there were more Leave votes than Remain? I also don't think either main party should have to have a clear position on Brexit. It is a free choice for every individual, so at best you could only say, "the majority of Labour (or whichever party) want to Remain (or Leave)". Once you get a party that is pure Remain or Leave, they wouldn't be much good at running the country because they are too narrow minded.

[Nearly Sane]

Because you are negotiating it because there were more Leave votes than Remain? I also don't think either main party should have to have a clear position on Brexit. It is a free choice for every individual, so at best you could only say, "the majority of Labour (or whichever party) want to Remain (or Leave)". Once you get a party that is pure Remain or Leave, you know they wouldn't be much good at running the country.

That's an argument for there being no political parties

[Spud]

That's an argument for there being no political parties

Is this a wind-up?

[Nearly Sane]

Is this a wind-up?

If parties need to agree things completely there will be no parties bigger than 1 member

[Spud]

If parties need to agree things completely there will be no parties bigger than 1 member

So we don't need to know Labour's position if there is a 2nd referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

So we don't need to know Labour's position if there is a 2nd referendum?

I have no clue why you've asked that.

[Spud]

I have no clue why you've asked that.

I'm really sorry if I am being dumb, but you did say,

The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.

[Spud]

Are you saying that we need to know Labour's position on Brexit, however they are split, whether 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 etc?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying that we need to know Labour's position on Brexit, however they are split, whether 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 etc?

Why would I be saying that?

[Udayana]

...
As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.     

Corbyn wants: "a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections"

The Political Declaration could be amended to include these intentions and agreed by the EU along with the existing Withdrawal Agreement. The referendum would then be a choice between that and Remain.
- Not much of a choice for anyone that voted Leave in the last referendum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just seems enormously hypocritical.

Why though? If the tories stood on that platform I'd agree, but the Lib Dems didn't call the referendum and nor to my recollection have they made statements since to the effect that they'd honour it. You could I suppose argue that they should have been saying since 2016 that they's revoke Art 50 come what may, but I don't see great hypocrisy for not doing so.

It's also their risk to take - if some otherwise Lib Dem voting remainers don't like the policy so much they'd withdraw their support that's the Lib Dems' loss to take.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Why though? If the tories stood on that platform I'd agree, but the Lib Dems didn't call the referendum and nor to my recollection have they made statements since to the effect that they'd honour it. You could I suppose argue that they should have been saying since 2016 that they's revoke Art 50 come what may, but I don't see great hypocrisy for not doing so.

It's also their risk to take - if some otherwise Lib Dem voting remainers don't like the policy so much they'd withdraw their support that's the Lib Dems' loss to take.   

Because if one of your planks of policy is that FPTP is wrong, then using it if you were elected on 35% of the vote to rescind leaving is hypocritical.