Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A second referendum is a dangerous distraction to the real act
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A second referendum is a dangerous distraction to the real action
Brexit Day is now just 125 days away, or less than 18 weeks, if you prefer (and of those, you can discount Christmas). The extent of the discussion of a second referendum is therefore a measure of the desperation of both those who want to stop Brexit and those dissatisfied with how it’s going.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In fairness to the People's Vote campaign another referendum #1 Was something the disjointed and waring europhile groups could agree on. It was a lowest common denominator policy and it's worked. All the big groups have rowed in behind it and are coordinating. People's Vote us more of a brand than a product but europhilia needed a brand. #2 It was an attempt at shooting the legitimacy fox. Favouring a second referendum is an explicit admission the first referendum must stand unless superceded. #3 People's Vote is counter populism after the elitism of the Remain campaign. It suited the vacuum of the chaotic negotiation period and will suit a post deal rejection period. What it doesn't suit is a period where there is a deal as a deal isn't a vacuum. The paradox of a People's Vote is the scenario it's most suited to - a deal - something to have a People's Vote on is the scenario it's least likely to happen in emotionally. After all if you have a deal why would you go through the horror of another referendum ?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/11/election-2019-getting-more-likely-all-time-and-tories-could-benefit?amp&__twitter_impression=true
no other options exist?
The head of the Democratic Unionist Party warns the prime minister that she cannot count on its ten MPs to save her from a vote of no confidence if the Commons rejects the deal.
In an interview with The Times Mrs Foster makes clear that the Tories’ wavering allies will not be bullied into propping up Mrs May by the fear of a Labour election victory.
Although the arrival of Mr Corbyn in No 10 is “not a pleasant scenario”, she says a divorce deal that in her view carves Northern Ireland from Britain is worse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/party-members-were-expected-to-turn-on-the-prime-minister-yet-many-who-dislike-her-deal-respect-her-spirit-dslnx6hb6
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Arguably Arlene Foster is right of course. Governments come and go and a Corbyn Government would come and go. As the Anglo-Irish agreement and the GFA show international treaties backed up by demographic shifts come but don't go. The Backstop will just quietly join the corpus of legal devices by which Northern Ireland is ' different ' but this time it's backed up by a nascent superpower Vs the UK not the UK Vs the much smaller RoI. Now I don't mind that at all and of course this is all the DUPs own fault for backing Leave. They've made an intergenerational strategic mistake doing that. But if I were a DUP politician looking at the Chess Board I'd be as angry as they are. A Corbyn Government is indeed less worse than that Backstop
It will have. I difficulty getting its own vote out. If the DUP are ok about Corbyn, many things are possible.
1) Does the PM want to do this?
2) Would her party let her?
The things that aren't particularly hard are:
1) Does this waste time / run out of time? No, you get an extension, and without it you probably can't get an extension, so it extends the clock.
2) Would this have some legal or procedural problem? No, if all the member states agree then it's simple, and everyone who's spoken on this issue has suggested they'll be OK with it, and indeed would like it to happen. It's just possible that someone would play silly buggers but it's unlikely - Brexit chaos screws their voters too, albeit less than Britain's - and urgent head-of-state decisions have strong peer pressure.
3) Does it risk No Deal? If you don't make it an option then no. If you do make it an option, then yes, if it's on the ballot paper then the voters may vote for it, but just hammering away at trying to get it through parliament also risk No Deal, if it happened then at least it would be the voters' fault not the PM's.
4) Would the PM be humiliated if she lost? I think No Deal would be the end of her, but if her deal wins then she's strengthened, and if Brexit loses then she's still there, the economy is looking great, her enemies are marginalized, and she can concentrate on the things she really cares about instead of the Brexit stuff that she's currently lumbered with. These are both better for her than the status quo, which is that even if she somehow manages to squeeze the deal through parliament she's got another two years of negotiations with low authority and constant sniping about betrayal, if they don't dispatch her as soon as the ink is dry.
Remember to win elections these days you need to get your vote out and be marginally less bad than you’re opponent to split the centre marginally in your favour. Corbyn ( or more truthfully those around him) are good at that.
Now that assumes that all the other parties in the Commons are prepared to play the DUP game. But they all have their own reasons to. Opposition parties to support a VoNC and the Tories not to fight a January GE under Theresa May.
2) Corbyn puts down a VONC, the DUP vote against the government
3) If the government loses 2) the provisions of the FTPA kick in
So the safest thing for May to do is to not bring the deal to Parliament as it currently stands.
She points to Labour MPs whose views on Northern Ireland are opposed to those of Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, and says that the DUP would look at the “whole picture” if it were faced with a choice between an early election or accepting a backstop that imposed a different set of regulations on Northern Ireland. “The Brexit deal is a real threat as opposed to something that may happen,” she adds.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/24/pro-brexit-adviser-admits-uk-would-be-better-off-staying-in-eu
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/brexit-advent-political-hellscape-war-with-spain
The EU27 would extend A50 if a #PeoplesVote was needed, so there is plenty of time.
If the Deal is voted down and we are heading for car crash No Deal Brexit in 125 days the a #Peoplesvote only has upside.
1) It extends A50, so gives more time for preparations for No Deal
2) There is at least a 50/50 chance of reversing the first vote.
3) If No Deal wins, we are no worse off than before, and the self harm is consciously chosen.
The only reason not to have one is the obstinacy of Parliament. Sure, it would be a humiliation for May, but No Deal would destroy her anyway.
If there is no #peoplesvote before Brexiy, then the backlash and grievance will be such that one after Brexit on Rejoining will be nailed on.
I'll get my coat...
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
Interesting article, Mr. Herdson. Reinforces my idea (must be said that Mr. Mark and Mr. HYUFD both disagree, and I'm sure many others do too) that someone wanting to nobble it for Remain should go with a Deal/Remain pair of options, as the former is the least popular of the voting choices.
F1: think third practice is about 10am, and qualifying 1pm today. Put a little on Raikkonen each way at 21 (23 with boost) for pole yesterday. I think qualifying could be very tight and those odds just look too long.
Edited extra bit: also, set up a hedge on the Ladbrokes Exchange at 3, on the same event.
I do not think any politician in the House of Commons would be forgiven for the consequences of that, for all Labour's complacency.
On the downside, remember that the polls now are different from those before, in that the people being polled already includes the millions who were impressed by Corbyn last time and who voted Labour in 2017. Polls prior to 2017 didn't have this knowledge, and turned out to be wrong. But there is no logic for the same big shift taking place in the next campaign, because it is already in the base polling data (as we see, with Labour close rather than miles behind). And a lot of the shine has come off Corbyn this year.
Critically, they will have to agree a plan for Brexit, or no Brexit.
My personal view is that 2017 was a high water mark for both major parties, and the next GE will hang on which party loses least, not to the other, but to third parties or staying at home.
She will lose if she mentions the Withdrawal Agreement (of which 95% is about a maximum 45 month transition period) again after Sunday.
It needs 323 MPS, not 326, as Sinn Fein don't take their seats. The Tories have 317 MPs plus the speaker.
Assuming all Tory MPs turn up and play ball, which they should, those last five or six MPs could be very interesting, particularly since there are several independent MPs right now, none of whom are fans of Corbyn and don't take a whip.
And on Barnier's.
Maybe there's a twist and a previously minor character will suddenly emerge as the real hero of the tale? Not sure I want to read to the end otherwise.
But overwhelmingly voters aren't Saints.
Turn up to the signing. Strike through the Backstop provisions. Initial the change. Sign the deal. Get back on the plane with "Over to you, guys. It's all I can get approved...."
She'd be a legend.
Will that happen? I don't think so. Theresa May is still the government and will clearly plough on regardless. The EU won't invest anything in protecting us from our bad decisions, even if they regret them.
Brexit will however be very messy and, I am increasingly thinking, unworkable.
Mr. Observer (2), what's the verbal equivalent of a tin ear? A lead tongue? A granite larynx?
May's record of unforced errors and stupid little mistakes (cf the reduction of FOBT stakes, magically transforming a good government policy into terrible headlines) is remarkable.
I'd still take the mediocrity over the Marxist every day of the week, though.
People accuse the government of failing to do No Deal planning, but it did issue planning notices under Dominic Raab. Either the EU would OF COURSE do a deal with the UK on things like aviation and ignore the stuff the UK doesn't like. Or there's absolutely nothing the UK government can do about it but if exporters etc want to do their own No Deal planning, please go ahead. This No Deal planning presumably involves a loaded revolver and a bottle of whisky.
The point is, we may go through No Deal, but we're not going to stay there. Any ultimate deal will almost certainly be worse than the current proposal with extra chaos on top.
People who voted remain and people who voted for leave did vote for the parties they voted for more than just that though, even some of those that gave it as their primary reason.
Reminds me a bit of shrieking at people who are take part in tax avoidance. Or 'following the tax law' as it's also [rarely] known.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
If Leavers don’t like it, they should blame the way they campaigned. They are the authors of their own misfortune. Xenophobic lies have consequences for everyone.
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
Mr. Meeks, holding people who aren't negotiating to account for the way the negotiation has been mishandled is an odd view.
One can imagine a very different Brexit that allowed for trade deals and no immigration controls. But that was not campaigned for.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.