The point about needing the PM, who is a Conservative, to introduce it, is correct, which is why it's unlikely to happen. However, she does almost certainly think Brexit is a stupid idea, and a majority of MPs agree with her. And there's a political upside to having a referendum once the details are known in that it makes it harder for the extreme side of Leave to demagogue it, for fear of losing the re-referendum. So it's not quite impossible that the politics would work.
On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.
That still requires passing legislation for the referendum while simutaneously trying to negotiate the exit deal, and also - crucially - giving every other EU member an effective veto, which they don't currently have. That would give them an incredibly strong hand e.g. if Ireland doesn't like the border deal, it refuses to extend A50. Britain would get an appalling deal, making the chance of a rejection far higher. And then what?
No, you'd negotiate the deal first, then right at the end of the process you ask for the referendum extension. Then you make the announcement, and ask parliament to legislate. If parliament decides you can't have the referendum, then you're leaving anyway. You can't bring the referendum up in discussions earlier for the reason ypu give - even if it hadn't affected the deal, the Leave side would say it had, and pledge to renegotiate a better one.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
Mr. (Sean) F, not in legal terms, but if we voted to leave and then remained because the political class (even with polling indicative of wider support) decided to ignore the democratic decision of the electorate that would create a very dangerous situation.
This where Brexitaliban are now. The only justification for proceeding is that they'll vote for Nazis and burn down Ikea if we don't.
What would a second referendum achieve? Its proponents assume that it would result in a sweeping victory for Remain, but i think that's a false assumption.
As David Herdson implies in the header, a second referendum must take place after we've left.
That changes the question from should we remain part of the European Union to should we REJOIN.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
If you're the Prime Minister of a country you can announce that your government intends to do something then ask parliament to pass the legislation necessary to do it. That's the whole point of being Prime Minister.
It's of course always possible that you'll announce something but when you try to do it parliament will tell you to piss off, and that happens from time to time, but that doesn't generally prevent Prime Ministers from announcing things.
Semantics, but as pedantry is a requirement for the PBC club, I take your point. To clarify, a PM cannot simply state that there will be a referendum and from that statement, there will be.
Passing legislation takes time. Like I said, the EURef1 Bill took seven months to go through parliament, with all sorts of backbench guerilla warfare. An EUref2 bill, where the stakes are even higher, would be subject to even more intense debate between three factions: the government, who want the deal secured; Remainers, who want the process stopped and reversed; and Ultras, who want Brexit on cleaner terms. I suggested that three months was the minimum necessary in the article. Perhaps that was a bit pessimistic but there'd be sustained arguments at all the main stages of the Bill, in both the Commons and the Lords. It wouldn't be quick. Perhaps, if there's a deal in October, it could be done. However, I don't expect a deal any earlier than December - and that would be too late.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Unfortunately, Mrs May chose to exclude Remain voters and politicians from the Brexit process almost as soon as she became Prime Minister. We are where we are because she chose to play to the right wing press and court the Brexit loons in her party, rather than build a consensus that could unite the country. We are reaping the consequences of the choices she alone made.
I do not think it was ever possible to reconcile the factions, any more than the SNP would be reconciled to permanant Union.
I pretty much accepted the result straight off the bat. What got me was all the enemies of the people, saboteurs rhetoric, and the absurd decision to impose those absolute red lines. There are clearly a decent number of people who will never be reconciled to us leaving the EU for ideological reasons, but there are also plenty of pragmatic Remainers who could have been won over by an approach that sought consensus rather than confrontation.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
If Hammond is a fanatic, he's the best disguised one I've ever seen. I suspect there's a bit of projection going on...
Too wet and wimpy to be a fanatic
He is very firm on not publishing his own tax returns .
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Unfortunately, Mrs May chose to exclude Remain voters and politicians from the Brexit process almost as soon as she became Prime Minister. We are where we are because she chose to play to the right wing press and court the Brexit loons in her party, rather than build a consensus that could unite the country. We are reaping the consequences of the choices she alone made.
I do not think it was ever possible to reconcile the factions, any more than the SNP would be reconciled to permanant Union.
I pretty much accepted the result straight off the bat. What got me was all the enemies of the people, saboteurs rhetoric, and the absurd decision to impose those absolute red lines. There are clearly a decent number of people who will never be reconciled to us leaving the EU for ideological reasons, but there are also plenty of pragmatic Remainers who could have been won over by an approach that sought consensus rather than confrontation.
I am not convinced. The main driver was migration, and that means no SM, though CU could stay. The CU however offends the Brexit Buccaneers like @RichardTyndall. The only waywto keep both Leave factions together is hard Brexit ala May. The language of Traitors etc from the tablods is merely garnish.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
Only if you think Brexit can remain an abstract expression of values without any real world consequences. The pro-Brexit faction aren't going to die in a ditch to build customs posts with our neighbours.
JRM says Treasury are fiddling the figures (bbc lead story for me)...
TM surely has to respond?
Either by sacking Hammond and getting in a Brexiteer or by coming out in support of Hammond...
The danger is that a lack of response leads to more letters for Graham Brady’s postman to deliver.
I expect that she’ll be seeking firm assurance from Hammond that the allegations are completely unfounded. If they’re not completely unfounded then we probably get to see Michael Gove as Chancellor in short order.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist. I never was a proponent of Project Fear.
In a decade how will Brexit Britain look? The danger for the Tories is that angry white van man will see none of his desires met, and angry young student will be angrier too.
I am not convinced. The main driver was migration, and that means no SM, though CU could stay. The CU however offends the Brexit Buccaneers like @RichardTyndall. The only waywto keep both Leave factions together is hard Brexit ala May. The language of Traitors etc from the tablods is merely garnish.
If there is a solution it will be around a BINO. This assumes that Leavers are mostly concerned with rhetoric and symbols. They are content as long as we can say we are out the EU, we have "our own" immigration policy and can stick a union flag on "our" trade deals (never mind the quality, feel the red, white and blueness). On this assumption they have no interest in actually exercising sovereignty where you make choices with consequences. It's the idea of sovereignty that appeals to them. For their part, Remainers are assumed to be concerned with consequences and as long the UK stays closely aligned to the EU they are happy.
If either of those assumptions are false, ie Leavers actually care about real sovereignty or Remainers about symbols, we're stuffed.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
It's true they might not be keen on a referendum that tried to get clever by pitting the deal against who-knows-what. That, and the time pressure in settling the details which as you say provides a lot of room for procedural arguments, makes the path of least resistance just doing the previous thing again, with the implicit premise being that the voters now know more about what "leave" means.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
Being lectured by London based elites that things are supposedly going to get worse economically for them when they think they have nothing to lose anyway and things can't get any worse for them clearly hasn't worked and won't work. It's part of the reason Corbyn has done so well - why care about a system or want to preserve one that you consider isn't working for you.
The experts at the Treasury and elsewhere never forecast what happened in 2008 and 2009 which has had such negative consequences for many. Their proclaimation of end times as soon as the Brexit vote happened - didn't turn out to be true. So why exactly would people believe them now? Models can produce any result you want depending on your initial assumptions and parameters.
I am afraid discussions about GDP also miss the point. I am reminded of that famous speech by Robert Kennedy - GDP measures everything except that which actually makes life worthwhile!
Or to put it bluntly for many there is more to life than money and London house prices.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
Remain cannot be an option on the ballot paper because there's no assurance of delivering it without an agreement in place from the EU. We've triggered A50. It would be fundamentally dishonest to put an option before the electorate that the government didn't have control over.
Mr. Ace, show contempt to the electorate and they shall do the same in return. Democracy is no small thing to be discarded whenever it runs against the political class' whim.
If voters conclude that voting doesn't matter because their desires can be ignored if expressed through the ballot box, many will be disenchanted and cease voting. Others will seek other avenues to affect change.
There is nothing wrong with the result of the first referendum.
Flatly disagree with that. The whole problem is that it was so close. With hindsight, even if it had gone fractionally the other way that would still have opened a Pandora's box and in the famous mixed metaphor of Ernest Bevin, many Trojan horses would have jumped out anyway.
If it had been 60/40 either way, we would not now be having all this angst. But because there was less than 4% in it we still have no clue what to do next and whatever happens will seriously piss off almost exactly half the country.
As an aside, it might be added however that the arguments for staying or going were pretty finely balanced - much more finely than the campaign would have us believe. We may be slightly worse off, but not have to take diktats from a drunken third rate nobody like Juncker who got to a minor office in a blatant stitch up and has been acting illegally and brazenly as a major political figure ever since driving forward a profoundly anti-democratic federalist agenda. Or to look at it another way, by staying in we may have to take orders from idiots like Juncker but at least we can set the rules of the game he plays, block further integration and be better off financially while we do it.
So in many ways the result reflects the problem. And that problem is hardly going to go away.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
What would a second referendum achieve? Its proponents assume that it would result in a sweeping victory for Remain, but i think that's a false assumption.
It certainly wouldn't take Leaving off the domestic agenda. And would most likely be the determinant for how vast numbers of votes were cast in the next couple of general elections.
Do Remainers REALLY want Nigel Farage to be resurrected as the voice of a huge - and hugely aggrieved - army of voters? They should take comfort in voting Leave having neutered him.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
If Hammond is a fanatic, he's the best disguised one I've ever seen. I suspect there's a bit of projection going on...
Too wet and wimpy to be a fanatic
He is very firm on not publishing his own tax returns .
Why should he?
Corbyn chooses to publish his. That reveals he cannot fill in fairly simple forms correctly and on time. It also reveals he cannot do basic sums and does not know for sure what his income is.
However, anyone who has bothered to look at his previous career knew that already. So that doesn't get us far.
What would a second referendum achieve? Its proponents assume that it would result in a sweeping victory for Remain, but i think that's a false assumption.
It certainly wouldn't take Leaving off the domestic agenda. And would most likely be the determinant for how vast numbers of votes were cast in the next couple of general elections.
Do Remainers REALLY want Nigel Farage to be resurrected as the voice of a huge - and hugely aggrieved - army of voters? They should take comfort in voting Leave having neutered him.
The media and Leave voters look forward to a Revenant party led by Nigel Farage.
JRM says Treasury are fiddling the figures (bbc lead story for me)...
TM surely has to respond?
Either by sacking Hammond and getting in a Brexiteer or by coming out in support of Hammond...
Have we had the Treasury's explanation as to how its forecasts were so wrong ?
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
Have we had the Treasury's explanation as to how its forecasts were so wrong ?
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
After all the reasoning behind the creation of the OBR was to provide independent financial forecasts.
I have been assuming that ever since 2007 and the collapse of Northern Rock.
However 'twas ever thus. There is the famous story of a medical student on the wards in the 1970s who kept getting his diagnoses wrong. In exasperation the surgeon he was with turned to him and said, 'Boy, you are too stupid and incompetent to be a doctor. If you wish to succeed in life, I advise you to retrain as a government economist.'
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it.
The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
If the EU did not do compromise the UK would not have got a budget rebate and it and other countries would not have got opt-outs.
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
If the EU did not do compromise the UK would not have got a budget rebate and it and other countries would not have got opt-outs.
Thta was when they wanted to entrap us into joining the Common Market with the long term plan to make it a political union.
Have we had the Treasury's explanation as to how its forecasts were so wrong ?
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
After all the reasoning behind the creation of the OBR was to provide independent financial forecasts.
I have been assuming that ever since 2007 and the collapse of Northern Rock.
However 'twas ever thus. There is the famous story of a medical student on the wards in the 1970s who kept getting his diagnoses wrong. In exasperation the surgeon he was with turned to him and said, 'Boy, you are too stupid and incompetent to be a doctor. If you wish to succeed in life, I advise you to retrain as a government economist.'
One important point is that over the course of 15 years, governments can adapt to changed economic circumstances. If unemployment rises, they can liberalise labour markets; if growth falters, they can cut tax rates; if inflation rises, they can raise interest rates etc.
Have we had the Treasury's explanation as to how its forecasts were so wrong ?
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
After all the reasoning behind the creation of the OBR was to provide independent financial forecasts.
I have been assuming that ever since 2007 and the collapse of Northern Rock.
However 'twas ever thus. There is the famous story of a medical student on the wards in the 1970s who kept getting his diagnoses wrong. In exasperation the surgeon he was with turned to him and said, 'Boy, you are too stupid and incompetent to be a doctor. If you wish to succeed in life, I advise you to retrain as a government economist.'
Mr. Doethur, there are some interesting differences in the EU referendum, which perhaps Osborne and Cameron should've considered more fully. I wonder if they did see it as a very similar vote, which would indicate a very pro-EU perspective from them.
Currency was the biggest difference, of course, but also Cameron coming out with Little Englander nonsense, denigrating the majority of the electorate.
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
If the EU did not do compromise the UK would not have got a budget rebate and it and other countries would not have got opt-outs.
Thta was when they wanted to entrap us into joining the Common Market with the long term plan to make it a political union.
There is nothing wrong with the result of the first referendum.
Flatly disagree with that. The whole problem is that it was so close. With hindsight, even if it had gone fractionally the other way that would still have opened a Pandora's box and in the famous mixed metaphor of Ernest Bevin, many Trojan horses would have jumped out anyway.
If it had been 60/40 either way, we would not now be having all this angst. But because there was less than 4% in it we still have no clue what to do next and whatever happens will seriously piss off almost exactly half the country.
As an aside, it might be added however that the arguments for staying or going were pretty finely balanced - much more finely than the campaign would have us believe. We may be slightly worse off, but not have to take diktats from a drunken third rate nobody like Juncker who got to a minor office in a blatant stitch up and has been acting illegally and brazenly as a major political figure ever since driving forward a profoundly anti-democratic federalist agenda. Or to look at it another way, by staying in we may have to take orders from idiots like Juncker but at least we can set the rules of the game he plays, block further integration and be better off financially while we do it.
So in many ways the result reflects the problem. And that problem is hardly going to go away.
Actually 52/48 to Leave settles the matter far more firmly than 52/48 to Remain.
Especially considering Remain had the full backing of the Government etc then after a Remain vote we would have Remained but there would have been a push for "one more heave" to get Leave over the line in a subsequent referendum some years later. Probably under a leave backing or more neutral government stance.
However once we've left the question becomes very different. People can't currently see the woods for the trees but rejoining will be an option once we've left. However realistically rejoining will be viewed very differently to remaining. Similarly remaining out will look very different to leaving. Once we're out then Leave will gain the status quo vote and remaining out will look a lot less scary than taking the leap into the unknown of leaving.
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
If the EU did not do compromise the UK would not have got a budget rebate and it and other countries would not have got opt-outs.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
English nationalists outvoted English internationalists. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the nationalists voted Remain in large part. And it is English nationalism that is now driving the Brexit process. That is not great news for the future well-being of the UK.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
Many Civil Wars, including those in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have been on the basis of one group not wanting to be "ruled" by another power, or wanting to be that power. Over time, people realised that Jaw Jaw was better that War War, and decided to run things by consensus. Trade between countries improved dramatically as markets opened, and consensus of standards across borders and countries actually allowed a cucumber grown in Greece could be graded according to size and shape, and be bought by a retailer in Finland who would know what he was paying for. Funnily enough, very few people died for their countries within the EU for their political beliefs, envy or resentment of others, unlike previously.
As for democracy, which Mr F, must be a novel experience for you as comments between us passim, the EU works by having the Council of Ministers (all Ministers of State or equivalent, who have been elected to their Governments by the Electorate of their countries), who give instructions to the Commission (equivalent to our Civil Service to enact), the EU Parliament, made up of elected MEP's from their own respective countries, acts as mainly oversight of the Commission and to alter rules and laws to make them fairer and sensible. True, the EP wants more power to bring forward legislation, but that is from elected people from all over the 28 countries.
That the Westminster Parliament has set expectations that it is always paramount, even when patently it is not, is a problem that the UK electorate is beginning to slowly become aware of. Along with the continuing myth that we are still a super power which every one else on the planet bows down before, rather than realising that we are seen as another country, with it's own comparable internal and external problems that many others have to deal with in their own countries.
If our own political classes of all parties had actually decided to become fully active within the EU, rather than mostly ignoring it, we might not, now, be having this problem of leaving. By leaving the electorate ignorant of the actual repercussions of losing the many benefits that being a member of the EU gives this country, surely must be almost criminal, or at least requiring a certification of insanity on many MP's and political leaders.
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
If the EU did not do compromise the UK would not have got a budget rebate and it and other countries would not have got opt-outs.
Those only happened because we had veto powers. We could veto the budget and we could veto their further integration if we were not given an opt-out.
Of course between them Blair and Brown gave away almost all our vetoes.
Mr. Doethur, there are some interesting differences in the EU referendum, which perhaps Osborne and Cameron should've considered more fully. I wonder if they did see it as a very similar vote, which would indicate a very pro-EU perspective from them.
Currency was the biggest difference, of course, but also Cameron coming out with Little Englander nonsense, denigrating the majority of the electorate.
Agree with that. But also there were significant weaknesses in the SNP position on the EU (ironically) and on debt that simply didn't apply to the EU vote.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it.
The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
Many Civil Wars, including those in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have been on the basis of one group not wanting to be "ruled" by another power, or wanting to be that power. Over time, people realised that Jaw Jaw was better that War War, and decided to run things by consensus. Trade between countries improved dramatically as markets opened, and consensus of standards across borders and countries actually allowed a cucumber grown in Greece could be graded according to size and shape, and be bought by a retailer in Finland who would know what he was paying for. Funnily enough, very few people died for their countries within the EU for their political beliefs, envy or resentment of others, unlike previously.
As for democracy, which Mr F, must be a novel experience for you as comments between us passim, the EU works by having the Council of Ministers (all Ministers of State or equivalent, who have been elected to their Governments by the Electorate of their countries), who give instructions to the Commission (equivalent to our Civil Service to enact), the EU Parliament, made up of elected MEP's from their own respective countries, acts as mainly oversight of the Commission and to alter rules and laws to make them fairer and sensible. True, the EP wants more power to bring forward legislation, but that is from elected people from all over the 28 countries.
That the Westminster Parliament has set expectations that it is always paramount, even when patently it is not, is a problem that the UK electorate is beginning to slowly become aware of. Along with the continuing myth that we are still a super power which every one else on the planet bows down before, rather than realising that we are seen as another country, with it's own comparable internal and external problems that many others have to deal with in their own countries.
If our own political classes of all parties had actually decided to become fully active within the EU, rather than mostly ignoring it, we might not, now, be having this problem of leaving. By leaving the electorate ignorant of the actual repercussions of losing the many benefits that being a member of the EU gives this country, surely must be almost criminal, or at least requiring a certification of insanity on many MP's and political leaders.
So in your eyes we need to be in the EU to buy cucumbers?
Except I'm pretty sure we import food from New Zealand, China, Thailand, South Africa, Jamaica and countless other nations that aren't in the EU.
JRM says Treasury are fiddling the figures (bbc lead story for me)...
TM surely has to respond?
Either by sacking Hammond and getting in a Brexiteer or by coming out in support of Hammond...
JRM hasn't said they are fiddling the figures - Merely that their conclusions are flawed as they haven't fully modelled all the options. If you have a pre determined outcome - even if it is subconscious - you are likely to produce a model which delivers the outcomes and results you want. Confirmation bias.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
Remain cannot be an option on the ballot paper because there's no assurance of delivering it without an agreement in place from the EU. We've triggered A50. It would be fundamentally dishonest to put an option before the electorate that the government didn't have control over.
That's what I'm saying, you make an agreement with the EU. You need one anyhow for the time extension to do it. So to be clear the sequence of events I'm suggesting is something like this:
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
That was 'Project Common Sense' as the SNP governments document on the folly of leaving a single market and customs union so elegantly demonstrates.
The Project Common Sense that said that continuing membership EU depended on voting No?
Of course it was Bettertogether that coined the phrase about their own campaign, so I can understand why that's uncomfortable and why Unionists (even those who didn't have a vote in the referndum) wish to reframe that, particularly the all aboard for Brexit ones.
Thank you, as always, for the piece, David. It's a dogmatic re-posting of the May agenda if you like - based simply on the fact there is no alternative (somebody else said that once as well ?).
Nobody is seriously advocating an exact re-run of 23/6/16 and, as I've argued on here many times before, a vote on the outcome of the A50 negotiations can't be made binary because there is no concensus on what rejecting any Treaty would mean.
Some cling to their understanding of A50 and say no treaty means we crash out without an agreement, others cite EU pragmatism and say a rejection would be followed by an extension to the period of transition/negotiation allowing more talks while others claim rejecting the treaty invalidates the whole process and we would be back to 23/6/16 (I don't follow that at all).
So whereas those voting LEAVE had many different reasons but agreed on one outcome, those rejecting the Treaty have many different reasons but advocate different outcomes making a binary vote impossible.
There will be a referendum on the A50 negotiations but it will be the 2022 GE and the question to ask is where will the parties be when that campaign comes round ? Will the Conservatives (whether under TM or someone else) go to the country on support of the Treaty backed by "changes" to encourage competition and improve the country's global economic prospects which equates to tax cuts for the wealthy and the erosion of employment rights for the rest of us?
Labour, whether led by JC or not, will presumably argue leaving the EU offers us a golden opportunity to improve workers' rights and condition and will promise prosperity for all. The marginalised LDs may simply advocate re-joining the EU at a future date.
The elephant in the room for both parties will be immigration - strangely I suspect there will be a degree of cross-party concensus on this which will end up pleasing nobody but which will take the fire out of the question for now.
Conservative LEAVE supporters can hardly complain if "taking back control" means the implementation of unpleasant (as they would see it) economic policies if supported by a party coming into Government after a GE. Such a party with a legitimate mandate from our democratic process would be able to enact such laws as they saw fit unencumbered by any overarching EU legislation.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Not just the fervent. The decision on how to vote was often based on 'values' - not economic calculus - which is why i) so few have changed their minds, either way, ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
But equally the divide is going to persist.
The divide has been there for a long time - just this time the "wrong" people won.
The over 40's outvoted the under 40's, the working classes outvoted the middle classes, and nationalists outvoted internationalists.
English nationalists outvoted English internationalists. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the nationalists voted Remain in large part. And it is English nationalism that is now driving the Brexit process. That is not great news for the future well-being of the UK.
What a gross over-simplification. You can still be an English internationalist whilst thinking the EU is a really shit way of going about internationalism.
It is just as valid (and yes, probably just as much of an over-simplification!) to say the EU lost the Referendum because of its own insecurities - thinking that any material movement from the status quo would have doomed their blessed Project. They had the power to keep us in. They weren't brave enough to try.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
That's what I'm saying, you make an agreement with the EU. You need one anyhow for the time extension to do it. So to be clear the sequence of events I'm suggesting is something like this:
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
...It would be fundamentally dishonest to put an option before the electorate that the government didn't have control over.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it. However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
People felt free to vote to kick May, because everybody was sure that Corbyn could not win. The whole general election idea was stupid from the beginning.
Democracy sucks. It really is wasted on democrats....
JRM says Treasury are fiddling the figures (bbc lead story for me)...
TM surely has to respond?
Either by sacking Hammond and getting in a Brexiteer or by coming out in support of Hammond...
JRM hasn't said they are fiddling the figures - Merely that their conclusions are flawed as they haven't fully modelled all the options. If you have a pre determined outcome - even if it is subconscious - you are likely to produce a model which delivers the outcomes and results you want. Confirmation bias.
Fiddling the figures is a direct quote. He also says they are doing this because it is politically advantageous- he’s not alleging a confirmation bias/some kind of subconscious influence, he is accusing the treasury of providing fictitious forecasts for political purposes.
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
Remain cannot be an option on the ballot paper because there's no assurance of delivering it without an agreement in place from the EU. We've triggered A50. It would be fundamentally dishonest to put an option before the electorate that the government didn't have control over.
That's what I'm saying, you make an agreement with the EU. You need one anyhow for the time extension to do it. So to be clear the sequence of events I'm suggesting is something like this:
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
Thanks for your detailed answer. It's an interesting an clever plan and might work. However, it still relies - in addition to the EU27 agreeing the return clause, after signing off the exit deal - on A50 being revocable, which is untested legal territory (or on some other mechanism by which it's nullified). It also relies on a PM being willing to bounce their party into it, in order to put the deal at risk. I don't see any Tory PM, or Corbyn, being willing to do that.
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
I'm not sure it's right that the substantive stuff won't be agreed; IIUC a lot of the EU member states want some clarity, and also want to preserve their leverage, so they're not going to want to sign off on a transitional detail that leaves the main parts undecided.
If what you're doing is letting the voters experience "out" then decide they don't like it then what a couple of people up-thread have wrongly said becomes right: What you're talking about is leaving then rejoining. I have no idea whether this is easier or harder for the EU side to win, but procedurally it's much about 100x harder, because you have to get stuff through parliaments and upper houses instead of getting a sign-off from a bunch of individual leaders who all know each other and want to go to bed.
Also I'm not really suggesting that the PM would try to game this to favour "remain". Politically I think it works better if she does "This is a great deal for Britain, I'm immensely proud of David and Boris, but I'm going to put it to the voters. If they prefer not to leave the EU then so be it, but otherwise I expect the remoaners to STFU". Like I say this actually makes it easier to sell the deal, because people considering attacking it from the pro-Brexit end will risk demotivating the voters they need to win the re-referendum.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Actually, no. It was a shrewd if desperate political move by Cameron to shore up his flank which was peeling off to UKIP in droves. The stupidity was that Ed Miliband didn't offer it first or that Nick Clegg didn't.
Whether Cameron believed the ploy would on its own win the 2015 GE I don't know but it kept the Conservatives in the running until they could use the Labour in SNP's pocket to scare LD votes and others back into the Conservative camp.
The irony is that might have worked anyway without the Referendum pledge - we'll never know. Once returned, Cameron had to proceed with the Referendum but, perhaps a bit like Nick Clegg with AV, he assumed the force of his own personality and popularity would be enough - "trust Dave" as distinct from "trust Theresa". He might have hoped he could get enough from the EU to argue he had achieved some form of reform.
Perhaps he hoped more of the Conservative Party would be on his side - he must have known the forces supporting any campaign to leave the EU would be powerful but if they had simply been Farage and the Mail he might have been able to hold the line. With serious Cabinet members on the LEAVE side and only lukewarm support from Labour (Cameron could not, in fairness, have anticipated Corbyn becoming Labour leader when he offered the EU Referendum), Cameron had one tactic left - the same Project Fear which had worked so well in the 2014 Scottish Referendum.
Hmm. OK, that might just work in theory but it still relies on the EU27 granting an extension without any quid pro quo (other, perhaps, than slightly higher UK contributions as an ongoing member), just so that the UK can risk throwing everything into chaos again if the deal is rejected. Perhaps they would do that but I could see Ireland, for example, simply saying "no, we now have a deal that protects the border; we won't put that at risk".
There's no chaos. Just repeat the original question. You just signed a deal on what happens if it's Leave, and if it's Remain then the whole thing goes away, which is the least chaotic outcome possible.
It's true they might not be keen on a referendum that tried to get clever by pitting the deal against who-knows-what. That, and the time pressure in settling the details which as you say provides a lot of room for procedural arguments, makes the path of least resistance just doing the previous thing again, with the implicit premise being that the voters now know more about what "leave" means.
I think that's right,and I'm fairly familiar with EU thinking (more than with British Government thinking on Brexit, which remains completely mysterious to me). If we want a bridge that's easy to cross, they'll offer one and any contctual difficulties will be dealt with as necessary. That's the way the EU works: political deals trump everything else.
Thank you, as always, for the piece, David. It's a dogmatic re-posting of the May agenda if you like - based simply on the fact there is no alternative (somebody else said that once as well ?).
Nobody is seriously advocating an exact re-run of 23/6/16 and, as I've argued on here many times before, a vote on the outcome of the A50 negotiations can't be made binary because there is no concensus on what rejecting any Treaty would mean.
Some cling to their understanding of A50 and say no treaty means we crash out without an agreement, others cite EU pragmatism and say a rejection would be followed by an extension to the period of transition/negotiation allowing more talks while others claim rejecting the treaty invalidates the whole process and we would be back to 23/6/16 (I don't follow that at all).
So whereas those voting LEAVE had many different reasons but agreed on one outcome, those rejecting the Treaty have many different reasons but advocate different outcomes making a binary vote impossible.
There will be a referendum on the A50 negotiations but it will be the 2022 GE and the question to ask is where will the parties be when that campaign comes round ? Will the Conservatives (whether under TM or someone else) go to the country on support of the Treaty backed by "changes" to encourage competition and improve the country's global economic prospects which equates to tax cuts for the wealthy and the erosion of employment rights for the rest of us?
Labour, whether led by JC or not, will presumably argue leaving the EU offers us a golden opportunity to improve workers' rights and condition and will promise prosperity for all. The marginalised LDs may simply advocate re-joining the EU at a future date.
The elephant in the room for both parties will be immigration - strangely I suspect there will be a degree of cross-party concensus on this which will end up pleasing nobody but which will take the fire out of the question for now.
Conservative LEAVE supporters can hardly complain if "taking back control" means the implementation of unpleasant (as they would see it) economic policies if supported by a party coming into Government after a GE. Such a party with a legitimate mandate from our democratic process would be able to enact such laws as they saw fit unencumbered by any overarching EU legislation.
I think I agree with pretty much all of that. Indeed, one of the important factors for me in voting to Leave is that any Parliament/Government elected at a GE should have the right and the power to pursue its agenda as set out in its manifesto without being hamstrung by the EU. That has to apply to Governments I personally disagree with just as much as those I support.
Indeed, one of the important factors for me in voting to Leave is that any Parliament/Government elected at a GE should have the right and the power to pursue its agenda as set out in its manifesto without being hamstrung by the EU.
And that, in part, is one of the arguments for the EU.
Without going all Godwin, Hitler was elected, and delivered on his manifesto...
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
Thinking further, this could work. We are bogged down in negotiations for a Canada deal with the transition running out and a very uncertain and delayed outcome that will be mediocre at best. Right now, this is on course to happen. My assumption is that we decide at that point to go for a Norway solution to put the thing to bed. But full membership might work better because there is nothing to negotiate. Norway will need a further transition that the EU agrees to.
I can see why Rees-Mogg et al want to scorch the earth to close that option down.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Hammond is working off evidence on the Customs Union that the cost of leaving the Customs Union massively outweighs the benefit of any eventual third party deals that are enabled by leaving. This evidence was fabricated according to Rees-Mogg. "Norway" and the customs union aren't incompatible and you can have both together, even if actual Norway didn't choose to do that.
You cannot be in EFTA and be in the Customs Union. The consequence of this is you cannot be in the EEA outside of the EU and be in the Customs Union. So Norway is not an option if you want to remain in the Customs Union.
We would probably have our own association agreement with the EU that mirrors the EEA. Both Norway and the EU are happy with their arrangement and don't want us messing it up. EFTA has no opinion on customs and is explicitly not a customs union but will act as a broker for its members in negotiating PTAs. Being part of the EU Customs Union doesn't preclude us from EFTA membership. We had this discussion before.
We have and you were wrong then just as you are wrong now.
EDIT: Supreme Court, not High Court. A cross-party group of politicians has asked Scotland’s top civil court to seek a European ruling to establish whether the UK parliament has the power to block Brexit.
Seven parliamentarians believe that MPs can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and that this should be a third option when they are asked whether to approve a proposed deal on the UK’s future relationship with Europe.
At a hearing at the Supreme Court in Edinburgh yesterday, the politicians asked for the question to be put to the European Court of Justice, which they said was the only body that could give a definitive answer. Judge Lord Doherty is expected to rule on Tuesday on whether a full hearing on the question of referral can be held.
I am not convinced. The main driver was migration, and that means no SM, though CU could stay. The CU however offends the Brexit Buccaneers like @RichardTyndall. The only waywto keep both Leave factions together is hard Brexit ala May. The language of Traitors etc from the tablods is merely garnish.
If there is a solution it will be around a BINO. This assumes that Leavers are mostly concerned with rhetoric and symbols. They are content as long as we can say we are out the EU, we have "our own" immigration policy and can stick a union flag on "our" trade deals (never mind the quality, feel the red, white and blueness). On this assumption they have no interest in actually exercising sovereignty where you make choices with consequences. It's the idea of sovereignty that appeals to them. For their part, Remainers are assumed to be concerned with consequences and as long the UK stays closely aligned to the EU they are happy.
If either of those assumptions are false, ie Leavers actually care about real sovereignty or Remainers about symbols, we're stuffed.
I think I agree with pretty much all of that. Indeed, one of the important factors for me in voting to Leave is that any Parliament/Government elected at a GE should have the right and the power to pursue its agenda as set out in its manifesto without being hamstrung by the EU. That has to apply to Governments I personally disagree with just as much as those I support.
Indeed, Richard, and that's democracy. I've rarely had a Government I can support in my adult life but I realise my views, ideas and hopes for this country aren't widely shared.
That's okay - I'd hate to always be in a majority and I was in the EU Ref so there you go.
At least in the democratic process you have a chance to argue your case with the British people and have an opportunity through the ballot box to change the Government and the country's direction. The growing sense for me within the EU was that it didn't really matter who we elected, the general policy and policy direction wouldn't change.
As my Dad always told me - "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always wins".
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
I thought Remain would win narrowly until I left the count at Luton and switched on my car radio (I estimated that Leave had won 54% in Luton, but it turned out to be 57%). But, the odds on Leave were so generous that it would have been folly not to place a bet on Leave winning. I got 3/1 and 6/1.
It occurs to me that if the narrative develops that the Conservatives will be wiped out in the London Borough elections, there will be further good betting opportunities. Even with Labour 22% ahead last year, the Conservatives still led in 8 boroughs.
Checked in couple hours ago it was “Brexit loons”. I see we are now at “Brexitaliban”. Sigh.
Yeah, the Remainers seem to think their moral superiority gives them the right to call out anyone who doesn't drink their flavour of Kool-Aid in whatever offensive and abusive terms they deem appropriate.
But every time they do, their flailing around just makes the memory of that night in June 2016 - as the results came in, city by city, region by region - all the more delicious. Thanks for that, guys!
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Hammond is working off evidence on the Customs Union that the cost of leaving the Customs Union massively outweighs the benefit of any eventual third party deals that are enabled by leaving. This evidence was fabricated according to Rees-Mogg. "Norway" and the customs union aren't incompatible and you can have both together, even if actual Norway didn't choose to do that.
You cannot be in EFTA and be in the Customs Union. The consequence of this is you cannot be in the EEA outside of the EU and be in the Customs Union. So Norway is not an option if you want to remain in the Customs Union.
We would probably have our own association agreement with the EU that mirrors the EEA. Both Norway and the EU are happy with their arrangement and don't want us messing it up. EFTA has no opinion on customs and is explicitly not a customs union but will act as a broker for its members in negotiating PTAs. Being part of the EU Customs Union doesn't preclude us from EFTA membership. We had this discussion before.
We have and you were wrong then just as you are wrong now.
I could again fish out the same direct quote from the EFTA website that categorically replicates what I wrote. But I can't be bothered.
That's what I'm saying, you make an agreement with the EU. You need one anyhow for the time extension to do it. So to be clear the sequence of events I'm suggesting is something like this:
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
Don't underestimate the difference between 'rejoin via an incomplete transition' and 'remain'. Rejoining means a full accession treaty, to be signed off by all other member states and their parliaments; remaining 'just' means finding some process within the rules that prevents A50 from becoming fully activated and getting agreement from the Council. A full accession treaty opens up all the questions about whether the UK could retain its former opt-outs.
Have we had the Treasury's explanation as to how its forecasts were so wrong ?
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
After all the reasoning behind the creation of the OBR was to provide independent financial forecasts.
I have been assuming that ever since 2007 and the collapse of Northern Rock.
However 'twas ever thus. There is the famous story of a medical student on the wards in the 1970s who kept getting his diagnoses wrong. In exasperation the surgeon he was with turned to him and said, 'Boy, you are too stupid and incompetent to be a doctor. If you wish to succeed in life, I advise you to retrain as a government economist.'
One important point is that over the course of 15 years, governments can adapt to changed economic circumstances. If unemployment rises, they can liberalise labour markets; if growth falters, they can cut tax rates; if inflation rises, they can raise interest rates etc.
It’s worth thinking through the difference between conditional and unconditional forecasting. “A macroeconomic model may be reasonably good at saying how a change in interest rates will influence output, but it can still be pretty poor at predicting what output growth will be next year because it is bad at predicting oil prices, technological progress or whatever.“
Brexit is only one of a large number of factors affecting the economy - we can say that it will reduce gdp other things being equal - but there are lots of other factors which have an impact.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
Exactly. I was the same. I was unenthused with the EU but unpersuaded it was worth the hassle of leaving until it was exposed how committed to the project they were and how little room for manoeuvre we were going to have going forward as the EZ became ever more integrated with EU institutions. It was time to go.
I thought Remain would win narrowly until I left the count at Luton and switched on my car radio (I estimated that Leave had won 54% in Luton, but it turned out to be 57%). But, the odds on Leave were so generous that it would have been folly not to place a bet on Leave winning. I got 3/1 and 6/1.
It occurs to me that if the narrative develops that the Conservatives will be wiped out in the London Borough elections, there will be further good betting opportunities. Even with Labour 22% ahead last year, the Conservatives still led in 8 boroughs.
I went to bed on Thursday night (had an urgent early meeting on the Friday) thinking REMAIN would win 52-48 or 53-47. My own area, Newham, would, I believed, vote LEAVE 60-40 (53-47 in fact).
As for London this May, I have never believed or stated the Conservatives would be "wiped out". IF, and it's a big IF, Labour can get hose who voted for it in the 2017 GE out to vote in the locals, it won't be pleasant but the Conservatives won't lose Bexley or Bromley as a start.
I do think losing Barnet and Kingston are both likely and Richmond at the outer edge of possibility.
I expect the Conservative majorities in Wandsworth and Westminster to be sharply cut but for the party to hang on. Hillingdon is hard to read - the results for Boris and Nick Hurd were poor but it's a big ask for Labour to win. That leaves Kensington & Chelsea which is another tricky one to assess and Havering where the proliferation of local independents and the fact 7 of London's 12 UKIP Councillors are in the Borough complicates matters.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives were the largest group in Havering but they may be ousted by a coalition of Labour, Independents and others.
On the positive side for the Conservatives, I think they have an outside chance of taking Sutton from the LDs but only that.
It's a bit trickier than this. The substantive negotiations are AFTER we leave and probably won't be finished by the end of the current transition period. For this to work, people need to have a clear idea of what Leave means in practice and decide they don't like it. That won't happen until well into the transition period. Having said that, if we indicate we might want to stay in the EU and the EU are happy to go along with it, they will agree to extend the transition until we make up our minds. So it could be Leave with cliff edge or Remain(rejoin) with continuity, thereby shifting nervous people to Remain.
I'm not sure it's right that the substantive stuff won't be agreed; IIUC a lot of the EU member states want some clarity, and also want to preserve their leverage, so they're not going to want to sign off on a transitional detail that leaves the main parts undecided.
If what you're doing is letting the voters experience "out" then decide they don't like it then what a couple of people up-thread have wrongly said becomes right: What you're talking about is leaving then rejoining. I have no idea whether this is easier or harder for the EU side to win, but procedurally it's much about 100x harder, because you have to get stuff through parliaments and upper houses instead of getting a sign-off from a bunch of individual leaders who all know each other and want to go to bed.
Also I'm not really suggesting that the PM would try to game this to favour "remain". Politically I think it works better if she does "This is a great deal for Britain, I'm immensely proud of David and Boris, but I'm going to put it to the voters. If they prefer not to leave the EU then so be it, but otherwise I expect the remoaners to STFU". Like I say this actually makes it easier to sell the deal, because people considering attacking it from the pro-Brexit end will risk demotivating the voters they need to win the re-referendum.
According to Michel Barnier's slide from a couple of weeks back the Article 50 withdrawal agreement will make no mention of any relationship following the transition agreement, except as they relate to citizen rights or Ireland. There will be a "political declaration" which will be issued AFTER the withdrawal agreement has already been finalised, slated for October this year, and BEFORE the formal leave date of March 29 2019. The political declaration is likely to be very vague and consist of an agreement to an approach to negotiations. It won't contain heads of agreement. The actual negotiations start in 2019.
EDIT: Supreme Court, not High Court. A cross-party group of politicians has asked Scotland’s top civil court to seek a European ruling to establish whether the UK parliament has the power to block Brexit.
Seven parliamentarians believe that MPs can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and that this should be a third option when they are asked whether to approve a proposed deal on the UK’s future relationship with Europe.
At a hearing at the Supreme Court in Edinburgh yesterday, the politicians asked for the question to be put to the European Court of Justice, which they said was the only body that could give a definitive answer. Judge Lord Doherty is expected to rule on Tuesday on whether a full hearing on the question of referral can be held.
Court of Session, not Supreme Court. At this stage he is considering whether there is an issue to try and he is likely to say that there is (I think). There will then be a fuller and lengthier hearing on whether the question should be referred to the CJE. That would normally be in a few months time but it is possible the public interest might accelerate the hearing in this case.
I thought Remain would win narrowly until I left the count at Luton and switched on my car radio (I estimated that Leave had won 54% in Luton, but it turned out to be 57%). But, the odds on Leave were so generous that it would have been folly not to place a bet on Leave winning. I got 3/1 and 6/1.
It occurs to me that if the narrative develops that the Conservatives will be wiped out in the London Borough elections, there will be further good betting opportunities. Even with Labour 22% ahead last year, the Conservatives still led in 8 boroughs.
I went to bed on Thursday night (had an urgent early meeting on the Friday) thinking REMAIN would win 52-48 or 53-47. My own area, Newham, would, I believed, vote LEAVE 60-40 (53-47 in fact).
As for London this May, I have never believed or stated the Conservatives would be "wiped out". IF, and it's a big IF, Labour can get hose who voted for it in the 2017 GE out to vote in the locals, it won't be pleasant but the Conservatives won't lose Bexley or Bromley as a start.
I do think losing Barnet and Kingston are both likely and Richmond at the outer edge of possibility.
I expect the Conservative majorities in Wandsworth and Westminster to be sharply cut but for the party to hang on. Hillingdon is hard to read - the results for Boris and Nick Hurd were poor but it's a big ask for Labour to win. That leaves Kensington & Chelsea which is another tricky one to assess and Havering where the proliferation of local independents and the fact 7 of London's 12 UKIP Councillors are in the Borough complicates matters.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives were the largest group in Havering but they may be ousted by a coalition of Labour, Independents and others.
On the positive side for the Conservatives, I think they have an outside chance of taking Sutton from the LDs but only that.
Running down the boroughs, i'd rate the Conservatives' chances at 99% in Bromley and Bexley, 80% in Havering, 75% in Hillingdon, 66% in Wandsworth and Westminster, 60% in Barnet, 50% in Richmond, Kingston and Sutton, 20% in Harrow. I can't make any assessment about Kensington.
ii) Project Fear didn't work and iii)Project Fear 2 won't work either.....
I see the Unionist attempt to expunge the original Project Fear from their memories is well under way.
True , they were happy for Project Fear for our Scottish friends .In fact on here , they cheered it on day after day..
Indeed, the real disaster of the Scottish Referendum campaign may have been that Cameron and Osborne were persuaded such a strategy would work, so they doubled down on it. The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
It nearly did work for the referendum in 2016.In my humble opinion , I was undecided to the last minute but voted remain because of it.However I believe a lot of Labour supporters voted leave to give Cameron a kicking, not clever in the circumstances , but that is the problem with referendums , people vote for differing reasons to the question asked.
People felt free to vote to kick Cameron, because everybody was sure that Remain would win. The whole referendum idea was stupid from the beginning.
Not everyone. There are a few of us on PB who were certain enough that Leave would win that we bet accordingly.
Comments
REMAIN 48%
That changes the question from should we remain part of the European Union to should we REJOIN.
And that is a very different question.
Passing legislation takes time. Like I said, the EURef1 Bill took seven months to go through parliament, with all sorts of backbench guerilla warfare. An EUref2 bill, where the stakes are even higher, would be subject to even more intense debate between three factions: the government, who want the deal secured; Remainers, who want the process stopped and reversed; and Ultras, who want Brexit on cleaner terms. I suggested that three months was the minimum necessary in the article. Perhaps that was a bit pessimistic but there'd be sustained arguments at all the main stages of the Bill, in both the Commons and the Lords. It wouldn't be quick. Perhaps, if there's a deal in October, it could be done. However, I don't expect a deal any earlier than December - and that would be too late.
TM surely has to respond?
Either by sacking Hammond and getting in a Brexiteer or by coming out in support of Hammond...
I know I've asked before, but the EU doesn't do compromise.
It will be happy to have us stay in the common market and CU as long as we also accept FOM, and obey all the rules. Which basically is staying in. If they give in on this, many other members will demand parity, which they cannot accept.
How is that a compromise? I've yet to receive a sensible answer from a Remainer.
I expect that she’ll be seeking firm assurance from Hammond that the allegations are completely unfounded. If they’re not completely unfounded then we probably get to see Michael Gove as Chancellor in short order.
In a decade how will Brexit Britain look? The danger for the Tories is that angry white van man will see none of his desires met, and angry young student will be angrier too.
If either of those assumptions are false, ie Leavers actually care about real sovereignty or Remainers about symbols, we're stuffed.
It's true they might not be keen on a referendum that tried to get clever by pitting the deal against who-knows-what. That, and the time pressure in settling the details which as you say provides a lot of room for procedural arguments, makes the path of least resistance just doing the previous thing again, with the implicit premise being that the voters now know more about what "leave" means.
The experts at the Treasury and elsewhere never forecast what happened in 2008 and 2009 which has had such negative consequences for many. Their proclaimation of end times as soon as the Brexit vote happened - didn't turn out to be true. So why exactly would people believe them now? Models can produce any result you want depending on your initial assumptions and parameters.
I am afraid discussions about GDP also miss the point. I am reminded of that famous speech by Robert Kennedy - GDP measures everything except that which actually makes life worthwhile!
Or to put it bluntly for many there is more to life than money and London house prices.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/24/robert-kennedy-gdp
Or option3: ignore the irrelevant backbencher.
If voters conclude that voting doesn't matter because their desires can be ignored if expressed through the ballot box, many will be disenchanted and cease voting. Others will seek other avenues to affect change.
If it had been 60/40 either way, we would not now be having all this angst. But because there was less than 4% in it we still have no clue what to do next and whatever happens will seriously piss off almost exactly half the country.
As an aside, it might be added however that the arguments for staying or going were pretty finely balanced - much more finely than the campaign would have us believe. We may be slightly worse off, but not have to take diktats from a drunken third rate nobody like Juncker who got to a minor office in a blatant stitch up and has been acting illegally and brazenly as a major political figure ever since driving forward a profoundly anti-democratic federalist agenda. Or to look at it another way, by staying in we may have to take orders from idiots like Juncker but at least we can set the rules of the game he plays, block further integration and be better off financially while we do it.
So in many ways the result reflects the problem. And that problem is hardly going to go away.
A case of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).
Do Remainers REALLY want Nigel Farage to be resurrected as the voice of a huge - and hugely aggrieved - army of voters? They should take comfort in voting Leave having neutered him.
Corbyn chooses to publish his. That reveals he cannot fill in fairly simple forms correctly and on time. It also reveals he cannot do basic sums and does not know for sure what his income is.
However, anyone who has bothered to look at his previous career knew that already. So that doesn't get us far.
Until that happens and it also reveals how its errors will not be repeated in the future we can only assume that the Treasury is either biased or incompetent and has no intention of rectifying matters.
Of course the Treasury has rather a history of inaccurate forecasts. For example:
http://www.ukpol.co.uk/alistair-darling-2008-budget/
After all the reasoning behind the creation of the OBR was to provide independent financial forecasts.
However 'twas ever thus. There is the famous story of a medical student on the wards in the 1970s who kept getting his diagnoses wrong. In exasperation the surgeon he was with turned to him and said, 'Boy, you are too stupid and incompetent to be a doctor. If you wish to succeed in life, I advise you to retrain as a government economist.'
The legacy had it not been for the SNPs misfortunes in 2017 might easily have been an independent Scotland.
Where is that student now - in the Treasury?
Currency was the biggest difference, of course, but also Cameron coming out with Little Englander nonsense, denigrating the majority of the electorate.
Especially considering Remain had the full backing of the Government etc then after a Remain vote we would have Remained but there would have been a push for "one more heave" to get Leave over the line in a subsequent referendum some years later. Probably under a leave backing or more neutral government stance.
However once we've left the question becomes very different. People can't currently see the woods for the trees but rejoining will be an option once we've left. However realistically rejoining will be viewed very differently to remaining. Similarly remaining out will look very different to leaving. Once we're out then Leave will gain the status quo vote and remaining out will look a lot less scary than taking the leap into the unknown of leaving.
As for democracy, which Mr F, must be a novel experience for you as comments between us passim, the EU works by having the Council of Ministers (all Ministers of State or equivalent, who have been elected to their Governments by the Electorate of their countries), who give instructions to the Commission (equivalent to our Civil Service to enact), the EU Parliament, made up of elected MEP's from their own respective countries, acts as mainly oversight of the Commission and to alter rules and laws to make them fairer and sensible. True, the EP wants more power to bring forward legislation, but that is from elected people from all over the 28 countries.
That the Westminster Parliament has set expectations that it is always paramount, even when patently it is not, is a problem that the UK electorate is beginning to slowly become aware of. Along with the continuing myth that we are still a super power which every one else on the planet bows down before, rather than realising that we are seen as another country, with it's own comparable internal and external problems that many others have to deal with in their own countries.
If our own political classes of all parties had actually decided to become fully active within the EU, rather than mostly ignoring it, we might not, now, be having this problem of leaving. By leaving the electorate ignorant of the actual repercussions of losing the many benefits that being a member of the EU gives this country, surely must be almost criminal, or at least requiring a certification of insanity on many MP's and political leaders.
Of course between them Blair and Brown gave away almost all our vetoes.
https://twitter.com/TheIFS/status/959759880360898560
Except I'm pretty sure we import food from New Zealand, China, Thailand, South Africa, Jamaica and countless other nations that aren't in the EU.
1) Agree a deal to leave with the other member states. This will likely include something like a 2-year transition which is pretty much the same as in practice still being in, but without voting rights. This still needs to be signed off by the EU Parliament (although their representatives were in on the discussions so it should mostly be a formality) so it has to happen some time before the current exit date.
2) Once it's agreed [1], tell the other member states that you'd like to offer the British voters a chance to think again, but you'll need an extension to the exit date (but not the end of the transition, which is the real, practical exit), and agreement that the UK can resume normal membership if that's what they vote for. They will agree to this. Maybe this is the bit that you're not buying, because you think someone will say "I won't agree to this unless you give us all your fish and join the Euro" which if they did would indeed torpedo the whole thing, but they will.
3) Tell the cabinet what you did, clean any any exploded brains off the floor, then step outside and announce the deal and the referendum plan.
4) Ask parliament to pass the legislation for the referendum. If they don't, the default is to leave.
5) They vote, and either you leave as per the deal, or you call the whole thing off and the rest of the EU breathes an exasperated sigh of relief.
[1] You might want to have had a quiet word with the Commission in advance about this hypothetical to work out what this looks like specifically, so they can say, "this is the procedure we can use".
Of course it was Bettertogether that coined the phrase about their own campaign, so I can understand why that's uncomfortable and why Unionists (even those who didn't have a vote in the referndum) wish to reframe that, particularly the all aboard for Brexit ones.
Thank you, as always, for the piece, David. It's a dogmatic re-posting of the May agenda if you like - based simply on the fact there is no alternative (somebody else said that once as well ?).
Nobody is seriously advocating an exact re-run of 23/6/16 and, as I've argued on here many times before, a vote on the outcome of the A50 negotiations can't be made binary because there is no concensus on what rejecting any Treaty would mean.
Some cling to their understanding of A50 and say no treaty means we crash out without an agreement, others cite EU pragmatism and say a rejection would be followed by an extension to the period of transition/negotiation allowing more talks while others claim rejecting the treaty invalidates the whole process and we would be back to 23/6/16 (I don't follow that at all).
So whereas those voting LEAVE had many different reasons but agreed on one outcome, those rejecting the Treaty have many different reasons but advocate different outcomes making a binary vote impossible.
There will be a referendum on the A50 negotiations but it will be the 2022 GE and the question to ask is where will the parties be when that campaign comes round ? Will the Conservatives (whether under TM or someone else) go to the country on support of the Treaty backed by "changes" to encourage competition and improve the country's global economic prospects which equates to tax cuts for the wealthy and the erosion of employment rights for the rest of us?
Labour, whether led by JC or not, will presumably argue leaving the EU offers us a golden opportunity to improve workers' rights and condition and will promise prosperity for all. The marginalised LDs may simply advocate re-joining the EU at a future date.
The elephant in the room for both parties will be immigration - strangely I suspect there will be a degree of cross-party concensus on this which will end up pleasing nobody but which will take the fire out of the question for now.
Conservative LEAVE supporters can hardly complain if "taking back control" means the implementation of unpleasant (as they would see it) economic policies if supported by a party coming into Government after a GE. Such a party with a legitimate mandate from our democratic process would be able to enact such laws as they saw fit unencumbered by any overarching EU legislation.
It is just as valid (and yes, probably just as much of an over-simplification!) to say the EU lost the Referendum because of its own insecurities - thinking that any material movement from the status quo would have doomed their blessed Project. They had the power to keep us in. They weren't brave enough to try.
Can hardly wait to read the thread and see how this statement of the obvious has gone down.
Democracy sucks. It really is wasted on democrats....
He also says they are doing this because it is politically advantageous- he’s not alleging a confirmation bias/some kind of subconscious influence, he is accusing the treasury of providing fictitious forecasts for political purposes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42929071
If what you're doing is letting the voters experience "out" then decide they don't like it then what a couple of people up-thread have wrongly said becomes right: What you're talking about is leaving then rejoining. I have no idea whether this is easier or harder for the EU side to win, but procedurally it's much about 100x harder, because you have to get stuff through parliaments and upper houses instead of getting a sign-off from a bunch of individual leaders who all know each other and want to go to bed.
Also I'm not really suggesting that the PM would try to game this to favour "remain". Politically I think it works better if she does "This is a great deal for Britain, I'm immensely proud of David and Boris, but I'm going to put it to the voters. If they prefer not to leave the EU then so be it, but otherwise I expect the remoaners to STFU". Like I say this actually makes it easier to sell the deal, because people considering attacking it from the pro-Brexit end will risk demotivating the voters they need to win the re-referendum.
Whether Cameron believed the ploy would on its own win the 2015 GE I don't know but it kept the Conservatives in the running until they could use the Labour in SNP's pocket to scare LD votes and others back into the Conservative camp.
The irony is that might have worked anyway without the Referendum pledge - we'll never know. Once returned, Cameron had to proceed with the Referendum but, perhaps a bit like Nick Clegg with AV, he assumed the force of his own personality and popularity would be enough - "trust Dave" as distinct from "trust Theresa". He might have hoped he could get enough from the EU to argue he had achieved some form of reform.
Perhaps he hoped more of the Conservative Party would be on his side - he must have known the forces supporting any campaign to leave the EU would be powerful but if they had simply been Farage and the Mail he might have been able to hold the line. With serious Cabinet members on the LEAVE side and only lukewarm support from Labour (Cameron could not, in fairness, have anticipated Corbyn becoming Labour leader when he offered the EU Referendum), Cameron had one tactic left - the same Project Fear which had worked so well in the 2014 Scottish Referendum.
Sigh.
Without going all Godwin, Hitler was elected, and delivered on his manifesto...
I can see why Rees-Mogg et al want to scorch the earth to close that option down.
A cross-party group of politicians has asked Scotland’s top civil court to seek a European ruling to establish whether the UK parliament has the power to block Brexit.
Seven parliamentarians believe that MPs can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and that this should be a third option when they are asked whether to approve a proposed deal on the UK’s future relationship with Europe.
At a hearing at the Supreme Court in Edinburgh yesterday, the politicians asked for the question to be put to the European Court of Justice, which they said was the only body that could give a definitive answer. Judge Lord Doherty is expected to rule on Tuesday on whether a full hearing on the question of referral can be held.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/call-for-clarity-over-revoking-article-50-ddv7zzq2r
That's okay - I'd hate to always be in a majority and I was in the EU Ref so there you go.
At least in the democratic process you have a chance to argue your case with the British people and have an opportunity through the ballot box to change the Government and the country's direction. The growing sense for me within the EU was that it didn't really matter who we elected, the general policy and policy direction wouldn't change.
As my Dad always told me - "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always wins".
It occurs to me that if the narrative develops that the Conservatives will be wiped out in the London Borough elections, there will be further good betting opportunities. Even with Labour 22% ahead last year, the Conservatives still led in 8 boroughs.
But every time they do, their flailing around just makes the memory of that night in June 2016 - as the results came in, city by city, region by region - all the more delicious. Thanks for that, guys!
“A macroeconomic model may be reasonably good at saying how a change in interest rates will influence output, but it can still be pretty poor at predicting what output growth will be next year because it is bad at predicting oil prices, technological progress or whatever.“
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/conditional-and-unconditional.html?m=1
Brexit is only one of a large number of factors affecting the economy - we can say that it will reduce gdp other things being equal - but there are lots of other factors which have an impact.
As for London this May, I have never believed or stated the Conservatives would be "wiped out". IF, and it's a big IF, Labour can get hose who voted for it in the 2017 GE out to vote in the locals, it won't be pleasant but the Conservatives won't lose Bexley or Bromley as a start.
I do think losing Barnet and Kingston are both likely and Richmond at the outer edge of possibility.
I expect the Conservative majorities in Wandsworth and Westminster to be sharply cut but for the party to hang on. Hillingdon is hard to read - the results for Boris and Nick Hurd were poor but it's a big ask for Labour to win. That leaves Kensington & Chelsea which is another tricky one to assess and Havering where the proliferation of local independents and the fact 7 of London's 12 UKIP Councillors are in the Borough complicates matters.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Conservatives were the largest group in Havering but they may be ousted by a coalition of Labour, Independents and others.
On the positive side for the Conservatives, I think they have an outside chance of taking Sutton from the LDs but only that.
The fact that his remarks are on the front page of bbc news is evidence enough.
TM is in a very weak position - I don’t know if she can get away with deflections/ambiguity for much longer.