Brexit - the next steps

[Nearly Sane]

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.

I have to admit to being baffled by the phrase 'a close single market' - surely that's like being a bit pregnant?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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.

Oh I see. But in that case you'd have to argue that the Lib Dems shouldn't stand for election at all because, if they did and they won, anything at all they did would be hypocritical as it would be enabled by an electoral system with which the didn't agree. Ironically, that would include having a one-policy only manifesto of changing FPTP for PR.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Oh I see. But in that case you'd have to argue that the Lib Dems shouldn't stand for election at all because, if they did and they won, anything at all they did would be hypocritical as it would be enabled by an electoral system with which the didn't agree. Ironically, that would include having a one-policy only manifesto of changing FPTP for PR.   

Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did. It only applies if they get a majority  elected on a small % of the vote. Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.

And that's of course while they are also saying that even if a majority of those voting in Scotland vote for parties supporting Indyref2 then it shouldn't happen.

[Udayana]

Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did. It only applies if they get a majority  elected on a small % of the vote. Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.

And that's of course while they are also saying that even if a majority of those voting in Scotland vote for parties supporting Indyref2 then it shouldn't happen.

I agree it is hypocritical. On the other hand those are the rules of the game as currently in place and they can and should use them to, as they expect, maximise their vote and subsequent power.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did.

But you would have to argue that they shouldn't do that either surely if the GE outcome under FPTP had caused the need for a coalition?

It only applies if they get a majority  elected on a small % of the vote.

I'm not following you here. If you think FPTP is wrong in principle then (by your argument) it would be hypocritical to be party to its outcome whether the outcome was a narrow or a large margin of victory. 

Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.

But they're not "deciding just to ignore it". They're standing on a manifesto pledge that says, "if you vote for us in sufficient numbers, then we will revoke Art 50". Leaving aside all the problems with the referendum, if the sitting gov't decided to ignore it (having pledged to deliver it) without a further vote then that would be just ignoring it. Here though the Lib Dems are saying that only if a future democratically decided event happens, then that would be their mandate for acting as they intend.   

[Udayana]

I have to admit to being baffled by the phrase 'a close single market' - surely that's like being a bit pregnant?

I'm completely baffled by Corbyn.

Today, in some voting intention polls, LibDems have overtaken Labour to take second position.

[Roses]

The Supreme Court has heard all the evidence now, and will let it be known early next week what their verdict is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

I'm completely baffled by Corbyn.

Today, in some voting intention polls, LibDems have overtaken Labour to take second position.

Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE. 

[Outrider]

I agree it is hypocritical. On the other hand those are the rules of the game as currently in place and they can and should use them to, as they expect, maximise their vote and subsequent power.

To be fair, hypocritical would be being elected by the current system (which they have criticised) and then doing nothing to change it - complaining about the system you have, but appreciating that you have to work with it is not hypocrisy.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

To be fair, hypocritical would be being elected by the current system (which they have criticised) and then doing nothing to change it - complaining about the system you have, but appreciating that you have to work with it is not hypocrisy.

That was my point and, if they did win under that system and then revoked Art 50 as they said they'd do in their manifesto beforehand, then I wouldn't see hypocrisy there either.

[Nearly Sane]

So let's say they get 10 million votes and end up with a majority, then using a system that they argue is undemocratic, they overturn the vote of 17 million on a single issue on a much smaller vote in a non single issue election. It just stinks of hypocrisy to me.

And then as already covered they wouldn't allow an indyref2 even if a majority of voters in Scotland were to vote for parties supporting it. Really no principles at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So let's say they get 10 million votes and end up with a majority, then using a system that they argue is undemocratic, they overturn the vote of 17 million on a single issue on a much smaller vote in a non single issue election. It just stinks of hypocrisy to me.

Still not seeing it. As Outy says, you can disapprove of a system and still work within it (what choice is there if you want to be in politics at all?). I’d have thought they should include introducing PR in place of FPTP as part of their manifesto too, but perhaps they’re thinking that Brexit is so all-consuming they don’t want to dilute the message.

That was my point really – just be open and say they’re positioning their manifesto as a de facto second referendum and let the electorate decide to remain or not on that basis. You can’t just play an equivalent numbers game though (“10m said yes but 17m said something else before so the 17M win”) when the two systems are incompatible.   

And then as already covered they wouldn't allow an indyref2 even if a majority of voters in Scotland were to vote for parties supporting it. Really no principles at all.

I don’t know whether or not they’d allow an Indyref 2. How would that work though – on what basis could they say yes to Scotland but no to any other region wanting the same thing? For what it’s worth I think an independent Scotland would weaken both Scotland and the remainder of the UK, but if after a decent interval popular opinion there was heavily for it I guess a second go would be unrefusable. What a “decent interval” would be is moot, but it feels like a once in a generation type event to me to avoid the risk of just asking the same people the same question in the hope of a different answer.     

[Gordon]

Swinson's position is illogical nonsense, and clearly she was keener to deploy the soundbite than she was to take the time to think about what she was saying.

She's my MP, but I won't be voting for her come the next GE even though I want to see A50 rescinded (mind you I didn't vote for her last time).

[Gordon]

I don’t know whether or not they’d allow an Indyref 2. How would that work though – on what basis could they say yes to Scotland but no to any other region wanting the same thing?

Well for a start Scotland is a nation and not a region: for example, our legal system, education system and NHS etc are separate from the other nations in the UK.

For what it’s worth I think an independent Scotland would weaken both Scotland and the remainder of the UK, but if after a decent interval popular opinion there was heavily for it I guess a second go would be unrefusable. What a “decent interval” would be is moot, but it feels like a once in a generation type event to me to avoid the risk of just asking the same people the same question in the hope of a different answer.   

I'd say a decent interval has already passed due to the current circumstances: we are now being compromised by the politics of another UK nation and by a Tory government whose PM lied to us in 2014, telling us that to remain in the EU we should remain in the UK - look where that got us!

[Nearly Sane]

How do you avoid playing a numbers if your  objection to a voting system is based on numbers?

And it's LibDem policy to refuse Indyref 2 as discussed by Swinson, no matter the ignorance of any individual poster here, and ignoring the idea of a majority vote to support a non majority vote is surely hypocritical?

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pTpwqkB48&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0pAoEUuiFerqdxk7AtWBsYpTwqzNxLKoiGZVWEtCMXfqS0tpKZzH5Rhdk

[ippy]

Udayana,

Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE.

I went to read your post and having read the first line, (I'm completely baffled by Corbyn) and the first line of your response I immediately thought, well you wouldn't the man's pig ignorant and this was before I had read any of the rest of your post so; snap!

Love the kryptonite analogy.

Regards, ippy.

[Walter]

Udayana,

Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE.

hi blue
you seam to have a problem with the Tories , why is that?

[ippy]

I'm not looking to argue about in or out of the EU, (or semantics), we, both sides we should know by now where we stand on this one by now.

I relented and thought I'd offer the remainers among you a clay pidgin like shoot out.

I'd just like to know what it is that remainers have against having an Australian type points system that can be used here in the UK to keep immigration at levels or at a pace that the UK would be able to handle or deal with, such as: keeping out specific kinds of criminals and overall and hopefully greatly reducing the amount of purely economic migrants coming here.

Where Ausie immigration rules apply I'm sure they, the Ausies, would be inclined to grab any young experienced air conditioning engineer applicant with both hands and speed their entry, I'm just using this as a rather, I would have thought, an obvious example where a points system would apply in a similar manner here, only and rather obviously with a trade or profession we need here.

If the UK were to introduce a points system the points could be gained by all sorts things that effect eligibility of any individual the UK would want to accept or not for reasons such as age, pensioners that could be a liability to the UK, criminal records, credit ratings, qualifications, in other words make it easy for those people that have the combination of skills etc that we need and minimise the amount of people we don't need etc.

Adjustments to the lists of people we need with specific qualifying potentials can be made dependent on whatever skills or qualifications we needed at various times.

The only problem I have with Immigrants other than the obvious that I have expanded on within in this post it's the sheer unrestricted volume of them, the unacceptable numbers, that we now have which I accept there's very little to be done about them now and we should be granting the ones already here permanent residence, (perhaps turf out the criminals, dependant on the crime, case by case), I'm looking forward to the restrictions hopefully the UK will be applying in the near future.

Where asylum seekers are concerned like most people I can't see there's a problem with them other than checking the validity of each asylum seeker's claim as individual cases.

ippy.

[Gordon]

According to this study, the reason there was a narrow 'Leave' majority in Wales was due to English people who had moved there "Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers" and it was the 'leave' voting areas in the south of England and not the north that were critical, "The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research

[ippy]

According to this study, the reason there was a narrow 'Leave' majority in Wales was due to English people who had moved there "Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers" and it was the 'leave' voting areas in the south of England and not the north that were critical, "The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research

In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it, with a free and fair, in or out only, referendum vote.

We have a UK remainer element that wishes to confound, go against or you could say cheat the leavers and rob them of their referendum victory.

Regards, ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it ...

Still unable to count Ippy I see.

There are approx. 67million UK citizens - by my reckoning just under 26% of UK citizens voted leave - not a majority in anyone's books.

[jeremyp]

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 think what is constitutionally illiterate is pretending it says anything about referendums.

[jeremyp]

Well for a start Scotland is a nation and not a region

It's actually both.

I'd say a decent interval has already passed due to the current circumstances: we are now being compromised by the politics of another UK nation and by a Tory government whose PM lied to us in 2014, telling us that to remain in the EU we should remain in the UK - look where that got us!

He didn't lie to you. Had you left the UK at that time, you would have been out of the EU. What he actually did was fuck up the Brexit vote.

[jeremyp]

I'm not looking to argue about in or out of the EU, (or semantics), we, both sides we should know by now where we stand on this one by now.

I relented and thought I'd offer the remainers among you a clay pidgin like shoot out.

I'd just like to know what it is that remainers have against having an Australian type points system that can be used here in the UK to keep immigration at levels or at a pace that the UK would be able to handle or deal with, such as: keeping out specific kinds of criminals and overall and hopefully greatly reducing the amount of purely economic migrants coming here.

Where Ausie immigration rules apply I'm sure they, the Ausies, would be inclined to grab any young experienced air conditioning engineer applicant with both hands and speed their entry, I'm just using this as a rather, I would have thought, an obvious example where a points system would apply in a similar manner here, only and rather obviously with a trade or profession we need here.

If the UK were to introduce a points system the points could be gained by all sorts things that effect eligibility of any individual the UK would want to accept or not for reasons such as age, pensioners that could be a liability to the UK, criminal records, credit ratings, qualifications, in other words make it easy for those people that have the combination of skills etc that we need and minimise the amount of people we don't need etc.

Adjustments to the lists of people we need with specific qualifying potentials can be made dependent on whatever skills or qualifications we needed at various times.

The only problem I have with Immigrants other than the obvious that I have expanded on within in this post it's the sheer unrestricted volume of them, the unacceptable numbers, that we now have which I accept there's very little to be done about them now and we should be granting the ones already here permanent residence, (perhaps turf out the criminals, dependant on the crime, case by case), I'm looking forward to the restrictions hopefully the UK will be applying in the near future.

Where asylum seekers are concerned like most people I can't see there's a problem with them other than checking the validity of each asylum seeker's claim as individual cases.

ippy.

Why the hell should anybody answer your questions? You won't answer ours. Why should we extend that courtesy to you?