Being upbeat about Brexit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure that is correct but its a moot point.

You can not be sure all you like, but you are wrong. Parliament can (and has) enacted both advisory and binding referendums - indeed the last 2 all UK referendums have been one of each. Had parliament chosen they could have enacted a binding referendum on brexit - they chose not to, rather they enacted an advisory referendum, which by definition mustn't fetter the discretion of parliament to decide or not to implement the results of the referendum. So once again the exact wording from the official briefing notes on the bill.

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

And the point as to whether is was advisory or binding, or whether it could have been the latter, isn't moot - indeed constitutionally it is critical. Either parliament os sovereign or it isn't - it you try to make a referendum that parliament has chosen to be advisory effectively binding (by trying to require them to implement the result) then you have curtailed parliamentary sovereignty.

[jakswan]

So can you tell me please which type of brexit (e.g. hard, soft, red white blue) has a majority in favour of it.

You claimed people will be unhappy with lack of and all forms of Bexit which would ultimately result in another vote.

[jakswan]

You can not be sure all you like, but you are wrong. Parliament can (and has) enacted both advisory and binding referendums - indeed the last 2 all UK referendums have been one of each. Had parliament chosen they could have enacted a binding referendum on brexit - they chose not to, rather they enacted an advisory referendum, which by definition mustn't fetter the discretion of parliament to decide or not to implement the results of the referendum. So once again the exact wording from the official briefing notes on the bill.

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

And the point as to whether is was advisory or binding, or whether it could have been the latter, isn't moot - indeed constitutionally it is critical. Either parliament os sovereign or it isn't - it you try to make a referendum that parliament has chosen to be advisory effectively binding (by trying to require them to implement the result) then you have curtailed parliamentary sovereignty.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.

Is the point not just exactly that? They had the option to and voted on it. It was not imposed on them by the result of the referendum.

[jakswan]

Is the point not just exactly that? They had the option to and voted on it. It was not imposed on them by the result of the referendum.

Never claimed it was all I'm saying is that the majority of mps will respect the result.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.

No they didn't - all they voted on was a timescale to initiate brexit negotiations in a non binding vote, (with a very important caveat - see below) - MPs were not asked to, nor did they, vote on brexit.

The caveat being that by a larger majority MPs voted to require the government to provide detailed plans of approach to brexit prior to triggering article 50 and that parliament must be given the responsibility to properly scrutinise those plans. The timescale vote is dependent on the vote on the plan and scrutiny - so no plan, no allowance for proper scrutiny, no alignment with timescale.

I suggest you don't trust what is written in the Daily Mail about this week's vote but actually to find out what PMs actually voted on.

Oh and of course important to note that the votes (both of them) aren't binding on either government or MPs.

[wigginhall]

A danger now of Labour being squeezed between Remain people, who may vote LibDem, and Leave voters, who may swing to Tory or UKIP.   I can see that they are trying to do a nuanced position, but it may well be construed as just confused, and voters may pass them by. 

[L.A.]

A danger now of Labour being squeezed between Remain people, who may vote LibDem, and Leave voters, who may swing to Tory or UKIP.   I can see that they are trying to do a nuanced position, but it may well be construed as just confused, and voters may pass them by.

I know it's a big 'if' but . . .

IF

people who voted Remain, voted for the most Europhile party, while the those who voted Leave split their votes between, Labour Tory and UKIP - we would see a Lib Dem government at the next election 

Now, I would be the first to concede that is probably unlikely - but even on a small scale this effect might produce some unexpected results.

[wigginhall]

I think May is home free in 2020,  barring odd events.  As to the other parties, unpredictable.  At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.

[L.A.]

I think May is home free in 2020,  barring odd events.  As to the other parties, unpredictable.  At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.

I think one think that we can be absolutely certain of is that the next few years will produce many 'odd events'

[ProfessorDavey]

I think May is home free in 2020,  barring odd events.  As to the other parties, unpredictable.  At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.

2020 is an awful long way away, with unprecedented changes between now and then, so I wouldn't want to make any predictions. If brexit goes tits up big time, with the economy hitting the buffers in say 2018/19 and when the current uneasy truce is broken, which will be the case as soon as it is clear which type of brexit the government favours her position will be very difficult.

It won't be helped that she won't be able to say either - 'hey but I won an election on a mandate to do this' - nor actually even to say that someone else won an election on a mandate to do this. Remember that the Tories in 2015 campaigned on the basis of staying in the EU, and of steering the economy toward a balanced budget by 2020. Both those key campaigning elements have gone up in smoke.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know it's a big 'if' but . . .

IF

people who voted Remain, voted for the most Europhile party, while the those who voted Leave split their votes between, Labour Tory and UKIP - we would see a Lib Dem government at the next election 

Now, I would be the first to concede that is probably unlikely - but even on a small scale this effect might produce some unexpected results.

I think that's right. Brexit is the key defining issue now, and I think will be for many, many years. Add to that that the country is pretty well split in two - deeply divided with absolutely no sign whatsoever of unity of reconciliation of the 52 and the 48. So there is massive opportunity for a party who appeals strongly to the 48%, regardless of how they are considered by the 52% if the 52% are carved up between a range of true brexiteers, and bandwagon jumping brexiteers.

Think about Scotland - the SNP favoured independence, the tories, labour and libdems opposed. The SNP lost, they only got 45% in their referendum (compared to 48% for remain) - yet what has happened in the two elections since. Well the SNP have held onto that 45% (give or take) while the 55% are split three ways - result in FPTP elections (and even Scottish parliament hybrid system) - result SNP wipes the floor with everyone else.

Just a point to note for those suggesting that continuing to pander to the losing side in a referendum is electorally crazy.

[Harrowby Hall]

Add to that that the country is pretty well split in two - deeply divided with absolutely no sign whatsoever of unity of reconciliation of the 52 and the 48. So there is massive opportunity for a party who appeals strongly to the 48%, regardless of how they are considered by the 52% if the 52% are carved up between a range of true brexiteers, and bandwagon jumping brexiteers.

But isn't the big opportunity for a party or interest group the prospect of getting some result from the 37% who did not take part in the referendum?

Now a fair proportion of them will certainly be disconnected from politics, or apathetic (or both) but there will be some who are genuinely concerned about the referendum result and may be motivated to take an active interest in the developing situation.

[ProfessorDavey]

But isn't the big opportunity for a party or interest group the prospect of getting some result from the 37% who did not take part in the referendum?

Now a fair proportion of them will certainly be disconnected from politics, or apathetic (or both) but there will be some who are genuinely concerned about the referendum result and may be motivated to take an active interest in the developing situation.

Actually it was only 28% who didn't vote rather than 37%.

Of that 28% there will be a fair number who never vote and will never vote. The opportunity to engage non voters I think is in the 18-24 age group, where 36% didn't vote, but many probably now regret that decision given the very widespread view amongst the young that the older generations have stolen the future of the young with the brexit vote. That demographic should be ripe pickings, particularly using social media techniques.

[jakswan]

No they didn't - all they voted on was a timescale to initiate brexit negotiations in a non binding vote, (with a very important caveat - see below) - MPs were not asked to, nor did they, vote on brexit.

The caveat being that by a larger majority MPs voted to require the government to provide detailed plans of approach to brexit prior to triggering article 50 and that parliament must be given the responsibility to properly scrutinise those plans. The timescale vote is dependent on the vote on the plan and scrutiny - so no plan, no allowance for proper scrutiny, no alignment with timescale.

I suggest you don't trust what is written in the Daily Mail about this week's vote but actually to find out what PMs actually voted on.

Oh and of course important to note that the votes (both of them) aren't binding on either government or MPs.

I wouldn't trust the daily mail to tell me what was on TV, thought you didn't do insults, sigh.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
MPs vote to trigger article 50

What point are you trying to make? Article 50 will be triggered if it needs a vote in Parliament, Labour will not vote against regardless. 

[jakswan]

Just a point to note for those suggesting that continuing to pander to the losing side in a referendum is electorally crazy.

Who is doing that? I think the LibDems are doing the right thing for the LibDems.

[ProfessorDavey]

Who is doing that? I think the LibDems are doing the right thing for the LibDems.

My point being that there are people suggesting that it would be electoral suicide for Labour to overtly campaign to (democratically) overturn brexit. I don't think it would be electoral suicide at all given that there are 16 million hacked off remain voters looking for a home.

Worked very nicely for the SNP, although sadly Labour were so incoherent and lukewarm in their support for remain in the referendum campaign I think they now struggle to be seen as credible by either the remain or the leave side.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wouldn't trust the daily mail to tell me what was on TV, thought you didn't do insults, sigh.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
MPs vote to trigger article 50

What point are you trying to make? Article 50 will be triggered if it needs a vote in Parliament, Labour will not vote against regardless.

You will note that the article makes it clear (as I did) that the vote was non binding - so MPs didn't vote for brexit, merely for a potential timetable on the basis that the government provides detailed plans.

But as it was non binding, it binds neither the government to provide those details, nor MPs to agree to the timetable if they are required to trigger article 50, which will be the case if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court.

So frankly the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing.

The government claim victory, so do the opposition, but actually neither are the most important show in town current - that is the 11 Supreme Court Judges, who you will note took not one iota of notice in the votes (which were clearly timetabled for their benefit) as they are smart enough to know that the votes have no relevance in law.

[jakswan]

You will note that the article makes it clear (as I did) that the vote was non binding - so MPs didn't vote for brexit, merely for a potential timetable on the basis that the government provides detailed plans.

But as it was non binding, it binds neither the government to provide those details, nor MPs to agree to the timetable if they are required to trigger article 50, which will be the case if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court.

So frankly the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing.

The government claim victory, so do the opposition, but actually neither are the most important show in town current - that is the 11 Supreme Court Judges, who you will note took not one iota of notice in the votes (which were clearly timetabled for their benefit) as they are smart enough to know that the votes have no relevance in law.

So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.

If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.

If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.

Wrong - if the Supreme Court rules that only parliament can trigger article 50 then a non binding vote a few months before will be completely irrelevant. Firstly because the votes will be entirely different - the first being on a timetable, but not actually triggering article 50, the second being actually on triggering article 50 at the appropriate point. Secondly because the first vote means absolutely nothing - has no legal or constitutional relevance. If the Supreme Court rules that parliament only can trigger article 50, that will be for real and also, be aware that both the commons and lords will need to vote - in last week's non binding vote only the commons voted.

Point to note - over 100 MPs didn't even bother to vote in last week's vote. Do you really think such a large number of MPs would fail t vote in a real vote on brexit, if one happens in due course. Given that it would be the most significant vote in recent times ... somehow I doubt that 100 MPs would be too busy 'washing their hair'.

[jakswan]

Wrong - if the Supreme Court rules that only parliament can trigger article 50 then a non binding vote a few months before will be completely irrelevant.

I said it was an indicator, that is not "wrong".

Firstly because the votes will be entirely different - the first being on a timetable, but not actually triggering article 50, the second being actually on triggering article 50 at the appropriate point.

Its still to do with Brexit so its not "entirely different".

Secondly because the first vote means absolutely nothing - has no legal or constitutional relevance. If the Supreme Court rules that parliament only can trigger article 50, that will be for real and also, be aware that both the commons and lords will need to vote - in last week's non binding vote only the commons voted.

Your second point concedes your first point.

Point to note - over 100 MPs didn't even bother to vote in last week's vote. Do you really think such a large number of MPs would fail t vote in a real vote on brexit, if one happens in due course. Given that it would be the most significant vote in recent times ... somehow I doubt that 100 MPs would be too busy 'washing their hair'.

Your 3rd point concedes your 1st point, and 75 + 100 is not greater than 448.

You go down rabbit holes, in my opinion Article 50 will be triggered by the end of March, I think the chance of that happening is pretty high.

You disagree, fine go make yourself some money:-

https://betslip.ladbrokes.com/RemoteBetslip/bets/betslip.html?selections=455967851&locale=en-GB

I bet on Brexit and Trump (dickhead) and this isn't good value.

[jeremyp]

So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.

If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.

There's no doubt the Bill for Brexit will get through (if the Supreme court decides we need one). The problem is how long is it going to take and what amendments will get attached to it. The Lib Dems in the HoL have already decided to amend it to insist on a soft Brexit and the government will have to spend time undoing it - or accept soft Brexit.

[L.A.]

There's no doubt the Bill for Brexit will get through (if the Supreme court decides we need one). The problem is how long is it going to take and what amendments will get attached to it. The Lib Dems in the HoL have already decided to amend it to insist on a soft Brexit and the government will have to spend time undoing it - or accept soft Brexit.

I suppose, it is possible that 'well aimed' amendments could split the Tories, and if that happened it's all bets off. Could even force and early election.

[ProfessorDavey]

I said it was an indicator, that is not "wrong".

You said they voted for brexit - they didn't - you were wrong.

Its still to do with Brexit so its not "entirely different".

Voting on a timetable on something is 'entirely different' from voting on the thing that the timetable relates to.

Your second point concedes your first point.

Your 3rd point concedes your 1st point,

No they don't.

and 75 + 100 is not greater than 448.

I never said it was - my point was that were this actually an important vote, rather than a non binding one whose only purpose was political posturing, that you wouldn't have 100 MPs not even bothering to turn up.

[ProfessorDavey]

in my opinion Article 50 will be triggered by the end of March, I think the chance of that happening is pretty high.

It's possible, but whether it happens or not by the end of March is entirely dependent on the outcome of the Supreme Court - if they uphold the earlier decision then I think that timescale is totally out of the window.

Which once again confirms my earlier point that the non-binding vote last week is a sideshow, an irrelevance. The key is the outcome of the Supreme Court.