On Brexit, there's a lot of talk about the domestic game of "chicken" between May and her opponents, threatening them with No Deal at all if they don't agree to her deal.
But most people seem to be assuming that if the UK wants an extension we'll get one, even though that requires unanimity from the other members. Isn't there also potential for a game of "chicken" between the UK and the rest of the EU - who are in a position to threaten us with No Deal unless we either revoke or agree to the deal that's on the table?
Yes, that's certainly a possibility. One sequence of events could be something like this:
* UK fails to pass the deal, TMay loyalists and no-dealers alike agree they'd like some more time to agree a deal or prepare for not having one * Some or all of the member states decline, saying "come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off" * TMay makes a strong patriotic stand about Britain's right to faff around inconclusively * Beastly foreigner(s) continue to refuse * TMay revokes Article 50, while telling the Brexiters that Brexit is still on and it's just a cunning and devious plan to get a better deal from these dastardly foreigners who are trying to back Britain into a corner * Plans to re-Brexit continue but year after year the second Article 50 notification fails to happen, until most the people who voted for it are dead
I am baffled at this idea of Grieve being able to manage egos cross party. He's obviously very bright and has had moments of effective opposition, but he's among the most fanatical figures in parliament right now, his actions are driven by his desperate emotional reaction to brexit. Hardly a good person to try to lead any kind of consensus effort.
Perhaps the biggest ego of all can manage the rest.
Any Labour or Conservative must know that they would be finishing their careers by joining such a government, unless they formed a new cross-party alliance dedicated to EU membership. Even then, FPTP would probably enable Labour and the Conservatives to kill them.
Remember we'd be talking a couple of hundred from each side, in the interests of national unity and the country. If we truly were facing no deal as the alternative, I think it would fly.
You are right that returning to their parties could be difficult, but is either of them really going to destroy themselves by taking action against so many? It would be an entirely different proposition to expelling ten or fifteen rebels.
The alternative might be that MPs are left impotent protesting about no deal whilst doing nothing meaningful to prevent it happening. That won't reflect well on them, at all.
I think it would be fewer from each side.
As to the last, doing nothing, while blaming opponents, is the easiest option.
Sadly, I fear you are right. But there's no harm in imagining that when our politicians are presented with the choice of being wo(man) or mouse, they won't all choose 'mouse'?
My prediction is that if they did mouse out and we end up in no deal, they'll mostly be kicked out in due course anyway. Indeed the consequences could kill the current parties.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
First, the economy should do well. We must always be suspicious of politicians claiming credit for normal economic growth (record spending, record GDP, record tax receipts or whatever). We should also remember Mrs Thatcher's second magic money tree, privatisation. Third, since this was before Gordon Brown abolished boom and bust, weren't there some busts to come?
Our economy is about the same size as France's. That was the case at the start of Mrs Thatcher's innings and it is true now. We have fallen further behind Germany and America. Any talk of British exceptionalism under either colour government is wrong.
On Brexit, there's a lot of talk about the domestic game of "chicken" between May and her opponents, threatening them with No Deal at all if they don't agree to her deal.
But most people seem to be assuming that if the UK wants an extension we'll get one, even though that requires unanimity from the other members. Isn't there also potential for a game of "chicken" between the UK and the rest of the EU - who are in a position to threaten us with No Deal unless we either revoke or agree to the deal that's on the table?
Yes, that's certainly a possibility. One sequence of events could be something like this:
* UK fails to pass the deal, TMay loyalists and no-dealers alike agree they'd like some more time to agree a deal or prepare for not having one * Some or all of the member states decline, saying "come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off" * TMay makes a strong patriotic stand about Britain's right to faff around inconclusively * Beastly foreigner(s) continue to refuse * TMay revokes Article 50, while telling the Brexiters that Brexit is still on and it's just a cunning and devious plan to get a better deal from these dastardly foreigners who are trying to back Britain into a corner * Plans to re-Brexit continue but year after year the second Article 50 notification fails to happen, until most the people who voted for it are dead
In any case, any fresh attempt to exercise A50, after revoking it, would not be valid under EU law.
The reason there won't be a second referendum are two-fold.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
The economists were talking about what would happen if the policies that caused the extreme recession of the early eighties were continued. They weren't.
The interesting thing is how much this gets under the skin of Tory apologists. It wasn't me who brought up this letter. I am quite happy that my ideas of how the British economy was working at the time, and what the effect of the actions of the government were. The economists' letter is a trivial matter in the history of a great nation. But it does illustrate one thing that is a pretty abiding feature of British public life. The Conservatives who represent the interests of the elite and the wealthy are at pains to claim a unique ability with the economy. That is after all the only reason for the rest of us to consider voting for them.
It is of course a complete fantasy. The Conservatives have no special insight into the way the economy works. Indeed how could they? How would they keep this arcane knowledge to themselves if they did possess it? In reality the performance of the economy as been pretty similar under both parties if, and only if, you take the unusually bad performance of the early years of the Thatcher out of the picture as an outlier.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
This is total hyperbole. The public will be free to reaffirm the decision based on all the new experience and knowledge.
The only reason you or any other brexiteer is against it is because you are afraid to lose this once in a lifetime opputunity to leave.
Let’s see if the people have changed their mind. Dont be a coward or a hypocrite.
I predict the 3rd or 4th iteration of May's deal to be passed at the eleventh hour.
My feeling is that, barring the most recalcitrant MP's on either end of the spectrum, there will be little real appetite when it comes to the crunch for taking one of the other, far more complicated and fraught, routes out of the mess.
And when we do leave I expect the subject of Brexit to become almost taboo with normal voters such is the bitterness and angst the process has created.
Everytime a factory closes or a business goes bust or a department store closes on the high st or a hospital has a flu epidemic or we have a financial crisis....Brexirt will be blamed and as time goes by the young the bright and the ambitious will get ever more angry and those who remember having voted for it will become a very tiny rump
The reason there won't be a second referendum are two-fold.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
Those are reasons why it's a bad idea, not why it won't happen.
I'd say that another would be that the losers won't accept the outcome. The losers did not accept the outcome after 2016. They won't do so after 2019.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
No, but is anyone going to want to be a pioneer?
Wouldn't it be safer to be among the crowd, later on?
Stores that increase prices by 99p from one day to the next, pushing what I was going to buy from free delivery to charged, should be consigned to Hell.
The reason there won't be a second referendum are two-fold.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
Sure it would resolve something, a binding Deal vs Remain referendum would either cancel Brexit, which removes the whole problem of Brexit happening, or accept the deal, which currently doesn't have the votes. These are very important and consequential somethings.
What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
No, but is anyone going to want to be a pioneer?
Wouldn't it be safer to be among the crowd, later on?
And anyway, wasn't the reckoning that only a few Tory MPs had explicitly said they would vote against the Deal, rather than just criticising it? Surely half the reason for postponing the vote was to avoid their opposition being set in stone in Hansard (so to speak).
As Alastair says, and as Nick Palmer demonstrates, Jeremy Corbyn's success has been down in large part to Labour members' projections of what he is and what he stands for, rather than what he actually is and what he actually stands for. On Brexit, that is beginning to break down. Like May, Jeremy has got to the limit of the can kicking and a few members - and it is just a few - are beginning to see things in the leader that they had not previously noticed and that they do not like. I suspect that this process will continue during 2019 because I think that Alastair is wrong on his point 2 (we will leave one way or another on 29th March) and absolutely right on his point 7 - "Whatever happens, large groups of people are going to be appalled by what happens in the coming year. The only question is which groups." The UK's departure on 29th March, secured by Theresa May and with the Labour leadership not having done all it can to prevent it, will begin the process of the far left's defeat inside Labour. not the creation of a new political party. That's because it will be Labour members who are most appalled at what happens over the coming 12 months and what their party under Jeremy Corbyn did to facilitate it.
I predict the 3rd or 4th iteration of May's deal to be passed at the eleventh hour.
My feeling is that, barring the most recalcitrant MP's on either end of the spectrum, there will be little real appetite when it comes to the crunch for taking one of the other, far more complicated and fraught, routes out of the mess.
And when we do leave I expect the subject of Brexit to become almost taboo with normal voters such is the bitterness and angst the process has created.
Everytime a factory closes or a business goes bust or a department store closes on the high st or a hospital has a flu epidemic or we have a financial crisis....Brexirt will be blamed and as time goes by the young the bright and the ambitious will get ever more angry and those who remember having voted for it will become a very tiny rump
No doubt Brexit will get blamed for the death of bambi, as well.
the Leave campaign used more unequivocally positive language in its messages than the Remain campaign which typically hedged its endorsements of the EU
In other words, the Leave campaign spoke of fantasy, and Remain spoke of reality...
Nope, since Remain didn't campaign on the basis of joining the euro and Schengen.
PBers interested in linguistics and Brexit should consider The Language of Brexit: How Britain Talked Its Way Out of the European Union whose research-based thesis is that the Leave campaign used more unequivocally positive language in its messages than the Remain campaign which typically hedged its endorsements of the EU, damning the EU with faint praise, even when not wholly negative.
At the time of the campaign I was saying that Remain was being too negative, and concentrated too much on economics. One of the decisive reasons Remain won in 1975 was espousing a positive vision. People need a vision.
I see some prospect of a more positive approach in the next referendum* while Leave goes more negative. People are becoming increasingly aware of what we are losing by Leaving, and the putative benefits of Brexit are increasingly looking like rather thin gruel.
*I think that the WA will probably pass, but not at the first attempt, so a #peoplesvote for Rejoin may well occur during the WA. Leavers should be happy with that, as we will have Brexited, before we implement the Rejoin result.
Rejoining the EU should only occur if people wish to sign up for ever closer union under German hegemony, namely joining Schengen, the Euro, a common defence/foreign policy with a European defence force replacing NATO, etc. There would be no rebate. The UK is better out of the EU, for their sake as well as that of the UK, unless it wholeheartedly signs up for the full deal.
I agree that it would be better to Remain on current terms, particularly the rebate, but Project Fear about Rejoin terms is overdone. The option is Shengan or CTA (which we will remain in anyway) and joining the Euro is effectively optional as no pressure is applied to non EZ states to join. A common defence strategy is merely a sensible idea.
We joined for good reasons in 1975, though we have forgotton why. We will remember soon enough and be nostalgic for the good old days of EU membership.
We joined a trading bloc in 1973, not a political union.
The reason there won't be a second referendum are two-fold.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
Sure it would resolve something, a binding Deal vs Remain referendum would either cancel Brexit, which removes the whole problem of Brexit happening, or accept the deal, which currently doesn't have the votes. These are very important and consequential somethings.
um.
The former won't stop people campaigning for Brexit. The latter won"t stop MP's trying to prevent it.
Except that is bollocks. The majority of LAB voters and MPs are remainers. It is just the leadership, the Milne/Corbyn gang, is out of step with party voters - a highly dangerous situation.
The Manifesto supported BREXIT. Labour added a 50 year record increase in votes.
Worth reading it in detail. Yes, it respects the referendum, but the bulk of Labour's text was about the benefits of staying close to Europe and remaining within as many of the pan-European frameworks as possible, the specific commitment they make is to "seek a Brexit deal" (my emphasis) that protects the UK's current benefits, and the Brexit section ends with a commitment to a truly meaningful vote on any deal in Parliament.
It could be argued that deciding to remain in the circumstances where such a deal turns out to be completely unchievable would not be a contradiction of the maninfesto (i.e. a truly meaningful vote should include the option of rejection). It could also be argued that voting for A50 and giving the Brexiters the best part of three years to come up with a credible, workable and beneficial way forward - and seeing them fail - is giving quite sufficient respect to the referendum result.
And it could be argued that the referendum result will only have been respected when the politicians do what we told them to do - leave the EU.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
The economists were talking about what would happen if the policies that caused the extreme recession of the early eighties were continued. They weren't.
The interesting thing is how much this gets under the skin of Tory apologists. It wasn't me who brought up this letter. I am quite happy that my ideas of how the British economy was working at the time, and what the effect of the actions of the government were. The economists' letter is a trivial matter in the history of a great nation. But it does illustrate one thing that is a pretty abiding feature of British public life. The Conservatives who represent the interests of the elite and the wealthy are at pains to claim a unique ability with the economy. That is after all the only reason for the rest of us to consider voting for them.
It is of course a complete fantasy. The Conservatives have no special insight into the way the economy works. Indeed how could they? How would they keep this arcane knowledge to themselves if they did possess it? In reality the performance of the economy as been pretty similar under both parties if, and only if, you take the unusually bad performance of the early years of the Thatcher out of the picture as an outlier.
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out
1. Obviously. 2. I would say that that is now something like a 52:48 bet but my guess (I am not brave enough to put money on it) is that we will leave on the due date. My further guess is that if we ask for a extension the EU will say no. Revocation will be just too traumatic. 3. Despite the best and earnest efforts of the ERG to bring this (and a failure to leave) about I don't see how we get to a second referendum at the moment. There would need to be a change of leadership, probably of both parties first. Possible, not likely. 4. Agreed. 5. Disagree. I think this is a much easier option to bring about than referendum #2: vote harder. If the Commons is stuck the mechanisms to a GE seem to me both easier and more likely to be followed. The interesting question is whether the current major parties can get through such an election with their current shape and range of views. A split is very possible. 6. It is very difficult to see May surviving the year unless she can get her deal through Parliament but I still think that is more likely than Alastair, even if it is not at the first attempt. I would say she is odds on to still be there, just. Corbyn baffles me. He is so useless and stupid that I have never really seen the attraction but it is plainly there so far as the membership is concerned and I think he is even more likely to survive. Cable will go this year, surely. 7. My fear is that UK politics will look very much the same in a year's time with deep divisions in the major parties, weak leadership, no clear sense of direction and a PM in place because the alternatives all seem worse. So I am not going to agree with that either.
"What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum."
People argue about GE results, but they don't re-run it before the new government takes power unless there's a no majority result. With a referendum, you always have a result.
At midnight on June 23rd 2016, I thought Remain had won and I shook hands with one my Remainer friends. The problem now is that Pandora's Box has been opened and it can't be closed. Brexit has to go ahead or democracy has to be ignored.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
The economists were talking about what would happen if the policies that caused the extreme recession of the early eighties were continued. They weren't.
The interesting thing is how much this gets under the skin of Tory apologists. It wasn't me who brought up this letter. I am quite happy that my ideas of how the British economy was working at the time, and what the effect of the actions of the government were. The economists' letter is a trivial matter in the history of a great nation. But it does illustrate one thing that is a pretty abiding feature of British public life. The Conservatives who represent the interests of the elite and the wealthy are at pains to claim a unique ability with the economy. That is after all the only reason for the rest of us to consider voting for them.
It is of course a complete fantasy. The Conservatives have no special insight into the way the economy works. Indeed how could they? How would they keep this arcane knowledge to themselves if they did possess it? In reality the performance of the economy as been pretty similar under both parties if, and only if, you take the unusually bad performance of the early years of the Thatcher out of the picture as an outlier.
To its credit, the Thatcher government did something of a u-turn after the huge demand cut of Geoffrey Howe's disastrous 1981 budget. By that time even economists had realised things were going wrong and were writing letters to newspapers pointing it out
It wasn't a unique event. I was studying economics at the time and my professor sent one to the Times himself, and there were plenty of others.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
lol, peaked , not dropped. You southerners just hate to admit the southern prosperity was provided by stolen goods.
Correction - there is a majority in parliament which does not want no deal. They don't consider it that irresponsible as they have as a majority risked it constantly. They are lucky A50 can berevoked.
Worst case will eb extension of A50 but more likely scrapped and we stay in. Not even an idiot will vote for May's dogs breakfast of a flustercuck.
That may be the slow side of your brain thinking there, Malc? There are growing signs that her deal may do a lot better than originally expected. And it may not need to win, first time - just to exceed expectations and for no other majority-supported resolution to emerge.
Ian, it is still a pile of steaming horse manure, though you may be right that the sheeple will indeed be herded into agreeing to it. They have past form of self abuse.
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
Quite. The reports that MPs are changing their minds come from the same sources as the reports last Summer that 30 or more Labour MPs would support Mays deal. These sources are the imaginations of Downing Street spinners.
The only way to avoid an election is a referendum. The only way to avoid a referendum is an election.
If there is an election, there must be a decent chance of a complete political realignment.
There needs to be a party of "Real Brexit". That can't be a party that includes Grieve or Soubry.
There needs to be a party of "No Brexit". That can't be a party that includes Corbyn.
Indeed. And whilst Brexit is possible on 29th March (May's deal) I do not foresee the circumstances where MPs pass the deal. They cannot be leaned on with "my deal or no deal" because thanks to the ECJ ruling its "my deal" or don't leave. A "democratic outrage" seems to be the suggested objection to such a revocation, but as MPs have to go back to the electorate anyway this is nonsense.
An election IS coming, and seems likely to be sooner rather than later.
I expect Theresa May to lead her party into the election by means of being the sitting PM and Tory leader at the time where the election is triggered (probably not by her). The Tory manifesto will commit a Tory government to delivering her deal. A deal which despite objections by crazies IS real Brexit as defined by the referendum question.
I expect Jeremy Corbyn to lead his party into the election by means of being the sitting LOTO and Labour Leader. The Labour manifesto will doubtlessly restate the bullshit vague "we will negotiate a deal" despite the EU saying "no you won't".
Neither leader's manifesto will stand up to 5 minutes of scrutiny. Neither manifesto will have the open support of the majority of MPs being elected on it. MPs of both parties will be openly organised into alternate power structures outside the control of their leadership.
NewKIP - led by Farage I suppose - will stand in heavy leave constituencies with various unknown unvetted candidates expecting to take many thousands of votes from leave means leave voters who previously voted for both parties. A few will likely get elected and we have seen in this parliament what happens when unknown unvetted people get elected by accident.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
lol, peaked , not dropped. You southerners just hate to admit the southern prosperity was provided by stolen goods.
LOL but the corollary is there are perhaps one or two north of the border whose case for independence is basically "we wouldn't have started from here because instead of pissing the oil money up the wall, we'd have started a sovereign investment fund in the 1980s".
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
lol, peaked , not dropped. You southerners just hate to admit the southern prosperity was provided by stolen goods.
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
Quite. The reports that MPs are changing their minds come from the same sources as the reports last Summer that 30 or more Labour MPs would support Mays deal. These sources are the imaginations of Downing Street spinners.
Maybe but the key is not MPs changing their minds but changing their votes, even if only because they think Theresa May's diabolical deal is the lesser of Jeremy Corbyn's evils.
Knowing that Churchill is the political hero of Boris Johnson, and that the former swapped political parties a couple of times, I wonder whether it is feasible that the latter might consider a similar manoeuvre. Is he the only politician who might heal the divide in the country by making his own journey across it?
I predict the 3rd or 4th iteration of May's deal to be passed at the eleventh hour.
My feeling is that, barring the most recalcitrant MP's on either end of the spectrum, there will be little real appetite when it comes to the crunch for taking one of the other, far more complicated and fraught, routes out of the mess.
And when we do leave I expect the subject of Brexit to become almost taboo with normal voters such is the bitterness and angst the process has created.
Everytime a factory closes or a business goes bust or a department store closes on the high st or a hospital has a flu epidemic or we have a financial crisis....Brexirt will be blamed and as time goes by the young the bright and the ambitious will get ever more angry and those who remember having voted for it will become a very tiny rump
No doubt Brexit will get blamed for the death of bambi, as well.
Fake news, Bambi didn't die (not in the film anyway).
Knowing that Churchill is the political hero of Boris Johnson, and that the former swapped political parties a couple of times, I wonder whether it is feasible that the latter might consider a similar manoeuvre. Is he the only politician who might heal the divide in the country by making his own journey across it?
The reason there won't be a second referendum are two-fold.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
Sure it would resolve something, a binding Deal vs Remain referendum would either cancel Brexit, which removes the whole problem of Brexit happening, or accept the deal, which currently doesn't have the votes. These are very important and consequential somethings.
um.
The former won't stop people campaigning for Brexit. The latter won"t stop MP's trying to prevent it.
This is of course true, people are free to campaign for whatever they like. People campaigning for Brexit isn't a problem. Brexit actually happening is a huge problem, with very serious real-world consequences for people's lives and businesses.
On MPs trying to prevent it , if you had a non-binding referendum on Deal vs Remain I have little doubt MPs would pass legislation afterwards implementing "deal" if that was the result. But Leave enthusiasts would be within their rights to worry that they might not, so it would make sense to make it binding, like the AV referendum. Technically parliament could of course repeal the legislation making it binding after the fact, but the current stalemate is due to no faction in parliament having a big enough majority to pass legislation for its preferred course, so the chances of them doing this are basically zero.
Knowing that Churchill is the political hero of Boris Johnson, and that the former swapped political parties a couple of times, I wonder whether it is feasible that the latter might consider a similar manoeuvre. Is he the only politician who might heal the divide in the country by making his own journey across it?
And go where? Who would want him? (Assuming you accept that UKIP are not a real party anymore).
"What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum."
People argue about GE results, but they don't re-run it before the new government takes power unless there's a no majority result. With a referendum, you always have a result.
At midnight on June 23rd 2016, I thought Remain had won and I shook hands with one my Remainer friends. The problem now is that Pandora's Box has been opened and it can't be closed. Brexit has to go ahead or democracy has to be ignored.
The idea that letting people vote on something once they have better information is undemocratic is totally insane, but this has been done to death here already.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
lol, peaked , not dropped. You southerners just hate to admit the southern prosperity was provided by stolen goods.
Quit yer blithering. You got your precious Stone of Scone back in Scotland. We got the oil, you got your Destiny.....fair deal.
"What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum."
People argue about GE results, but they don't re-run it before the new government takes power unless there's a no majority result. With a referendum, you always have a result.
At midnight on June 23rd 2016, I thought Remain had won and I shook hands with one my Remainer friends. The problem now is that Pandora's Box has been opened and it can't be closed. Brexit has to go ahead or democracy has to be ignored.
The idea that letting people vote on something once they have better information is undemocratic is totally insane, but this has been done to death here already.
And equally, conversely, forcing a radical change through on the basis of a single narrowly won vote that had no detail nor specific proposal could be seen a long way from being democratic.
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
On Brexit, there's a lot of talk about the domestic game of "chicken" between May and her opponents, threatening them with No Deal at all if they don't agree to her deal.
But most people seem to be assuming that if the UK wants an extension we'll get one, even though that requires unanimity from the other members. Isn't there also potential for a game of "chicken" between the UK and the rest of the EU - who are in a position to threaten us with No Deal unless we either revoke or agree to the deal that's on the table?
Yes, that's certainly a possibility. One sequence of events could be something like this:
* UK fails to pass the deal, TMay loyalists and no-dealers alike agree they'd like some more time to agree a deal or prepare for not having one * Some or all of the member states decline, saying "come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off" * TMay makes a strong patriotic stand about Britain's right to faff around inconclusively * Beastly foreigner(s) continue to refuse * TMay revokes Article 50, while telling the Brexiters that Brexit is still on and it's just a cunning and devious plan to get a better deal from these dastardly foreigners who are trying to back Britain into a corner * Plans to re-Brexit continue but year after year the second Article 50 notification fails to happen, until most the people who voted for it are dead
In any case, any fresh attempt to exercise A50, after revoking it, would not be valid under EU law.
If it was a manifesto commitment by a party that was then exercising Article 50 after a General Election, I don't see how the EU could block it. It would have a mandate of its own.
23rd June 2016 the UK votes to leave the EU by a narrow majority. Following the Miller case the UK Parliament passes an Act of Parliament, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to authorise the intimation of an Article 50 notice. 29th March 2017: the Article 50 notice is served. 8th June 2017 UK GE with both major parties committed to implementing Brexit making it a non issue in the campaign to May's considerable disappointment. 26th June 2018 The UK then passes another Act of Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to withdraw from the EU and to remove EU law as a part of our law. In accordance with the terms of that Act we still need a MV (to be held by 21.1.19) AND a third Act of Parliament to withdraw from the EU. Various MPs and MSPs get a ruling from the CJEU that we can unilaterally withdraw the Art 50 notice provided it is done in accordance with our own constitutional procedures. FWIW I think this would require another Act of Parliament repealing the earlier authorisation.
It really is remarkable how difficult the remainers have managed to make this. At every stage more hurdles are created and crisis points are manufactured. It has significantly contributed to 2 years of indecision and uncertainty. Will they finally succeed in reversing the 2016 decision and all the subsequent decisions? They are certainly going to give it a damn good try.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
This is total hyperbole. The public will be free to reaffirm the decision based on all the new experience and knowledge.
The only reason you or any other brexiteer is against it is because you are afraid to lose this once in a lifetime opputunity to leave.
Let’s see if the people have changed their mind. Dont be a coward or a hypocrite.
Don't you be a coward and a hypocrite and follow through with the referendum result which should be put into place then maybe some years into a brexit Britain we may put it to a test.
23rd June 2016 the UK votes to leave the EU by a narrow majority. Following the Miller case the UK Parliament passes an Act of Parliament, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to authorise the intimation of an Article 50 notice. 29th March 2017: the Article 50 notice is served. 8th June 2017 UK GE with both major parties committed to implementing Brexit making it a non issue in the campaign to May's considerable disappointment. 26th June 2018 The UK then passes another Act of Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to withdraw from the EU and to remove EU law as a part of our law. In accordance with the terms of that Act we still need a MV (to be held by 21.1.19) AND a third Act of Parliament to withdraw from the EU. Various MPs and MSPs get a ruling from the CJEU that we can unilaterally withdraw the Art 50 notice provided it is done in accordance with our own constitutional procedures. FWIW I think this would require another Act of Parliament repealing the earlier authorisation.
It really is remarkable how difficult the remainers have managed to make this. At every stage more hurdles are created and crisis points are manufactured. It has significantly contributed to 2 years of indecision and uncertainty. Will they finally succeed in reversing the 2016 decision and all the subsequent decisions? They are certainly going to give it a damn good try.
And we all remember the unity and sense of purpose with which the Brexiters set out to progress the project that they had spent their whole lifetimes planning and preparing for?
23rd June 2016 the UK votes to leave the EU by a narrow majority. Following the Miller case the UK Parliament passes an Act of Parliament, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to authorise the intimation of an Article 50 notice. 29th March 2017: the Article 50 notice is served. 8th June 2017 UK GE with both major parties committed to implementing Brexit making it a non issue in the campaign to May's considerable disappointment. 26th June 2018 The UK then passes another Act of Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to withdraw from the EU and to remove EU law as a part of our law. In accordance with the terms of that Act we still need a MV (to be held by 21.1.19) AND a third Act of Parliament to withdraw from the EU. Various MPs and MSPs get a ruling from the CJEU that we can unilaterally withdraw the Art 50 notice provided it is done in accordance with our own constitutional procedures. FWIW I think this would require another Act of Parliament repealing the earlier authorisation.
It really is remarkable how difficult the remainers have managed to make this. At every stage more hurdles are created and crisis points are manufactured. It has significantly contributed to 2 years of indecision and uncertainty. Will they finally succeed in reversing the 2016 decision and all the subsequent decisions? They are certainly going to give it a damn good try.
And we all remember the unity and sense of purpose with which the Brexiters set out to progress the project that they had spent their whole lifetimes planning and preparing for?
I must have missed that bit!
But really, three Acts of Parliament? Its almost as if we were even more entangled in the EU web than the darkest fantasies of the Brexiteers could possibly have imagined.
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
Exactly. All this "more information available" rubbish is tedious. And the reason why many who voted for Brexit do not want a re-run is not because they are scared they will lose but more that the pro-Remain camp would do their utmost to weight the campaign in their favour.
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
If parliament followed my wise suggestion of a binding referendum with a clearly-defined, signed-and-negotiated exit deal it would comes into force automatically within weeks if the voters vote for that, so no, you wouldn't have to worry about having a new referendum every second Thursday until the Leave voters all forget to show up or whatever.
Knowing that Churchill is the political hero of Boris Johnson, and that the former swapped political parties a couple of times, I wonder whether it is feasible that the latter might consider a similar manoeuvre. Is he the only politician who might heal the divide in the country by making his own journey across it?
And go where? Who would want him? (Assuming you accept that UKIP are not a real party anymore).
Exactly. Boris might imagine himself as this century's Churchill awaiting the crisis that will be the making of him, but he forgets that Churchill had a lifetime of convinction and principle beforehand, to the extent of sticking to unfashionable positions that made him unpopular, whereas Boris will change his views in a sixpence if he thinks it to his advantage.
I think Brexiting with May’s deal is still most likely, because it is the simplest and most obvious resolution from here. How May gets a majority onside though is difficult to see. Yes, we see a softening in Tory antipathy, but surely a hardened block of a dozen or so will never be brought round, and she needs every vote.
And, I rather think that as the panic sets in (and news that 50% of Brexit civil servants have started to stockpile food does not surprise me) there will be a sinew-stiffening effect on Opposition parties rather than a resolve-weakening one. May is turning Brexit into a judgment of her judgment, and I can’t see that ending well for her.
The only thing I am confident about is that she will not be PM by the end of the year.
After further falls the US market will eventually recover to be above the current level and the UK market will continue to drift down.
Interesting. Most analysts looking at things from the usual financial perspective (CAPE etc.), ignoring the politics, suggest the opposite - that US shares are (or were) signficantly overvalued in relation to earnings, whereas the UK market has been depressed by the politics, particularly considering that FTSE comprises significant overseas earnings,
US market has already ciorrected by 15% and earnings will still be high and rising in 2019.
Note the US market rose 5% yesterday.
The UK has reason to be depressed on earnings grounds and reason to continue to be depressed on earnings grounds.
Except that is bollocks. The majority of LAB voters and MPs are remainers. It is just the leadership, the Milne/Corbyn gang, is out of step with party voters - a highly dangerous situation.
The Manifesto supported BREXIT. Labour added a 50 year record increase in votes.
Worth reading it in detail. Yes, it respects the referendum, but the bulk of Labour's text was about the benefits of staying close to Europe and remaining within as many of the pan-European frameworks as possible, the specific commitment they make is to "seek a Brexit deal" (my emphasis) that protects the UK's current benefits, and the Brexit section ends with a commitment to a truly meaningful vote on any deal in Parliament.
It could be argued that deciding to remain in the circumstances where such a deal turns out to be completely unchievable would not be a contradiction of the maninfesto (i.e. a truly meaningful vote should include the option of rejection). It could also be argued that voting for A50 and giving the Brexiters the best part of three years to come up with a credible, workable and beneficial way forward - and seeing them fail - is giving quite sufficient respect to the referendum result.
And it could be argued that the referendum result will only have been respected when the politicians do what we told them to do - leave the EU.
After further falls the US market will eventually recover to be above the current level and the UK market will continue to drift down.
Interesting. Most analysts looking at things from the usual financial perspective (CAPE etc.), ignoring the politics, suggest the opposite - that US shares are (or were) signficantly overvalued in relation to earnings, whereas the UK market has been depressed by the politics, particularly considering that FTSE comprises significant overseas earnings,
US market has already ciorrected by 15% and earnings will still be high and rising in 2019.
Note the US market rose 5% yesterday.
The UK has reason to be depressed on earnings grounds and reason to continue to be depressed on earnings grounds.
The grey market suggests Wall Street will drop back significantly again today.
Except that is bollocks. The majority of LAB voters and MPs are remainers. It is just the leadership, the Milne/Corbyn gang, is out of step with party voters - a highly dangerous situation.
The Manifesto supported BREXIT. Labour added a 50 year record increase in votes.
Worth reading it in detail. Yes, it respects the referendum, but the bulk of Labour's text was about the benefits of staying close to Europe and remaining within as many of the pan-European frameworks as possible, the specific commitment they make is to "seek a Brexit deal" (my emphasis) that protects the UK's current benefits, and the Brexit section ends with a commitment to a truly meaningful vote on any deal in Parliament.
It could be argued that deciding to remain in the circumstances where such a deal turns out to be completely unchievable would not be a contradiction of the maninfesto (i.e. a truly meaningful vote should include the option of rejection). It could also be argued that voting for A50 and giving the Brexiters the best part of three years to come up with a credible, workable and beneficial way forward - and seeing them fail - is giving quite sufficient respect to the referendum result.
And it could be argued that the referendum result will only have been respected when the politicians do what we told them to do - leave the EU.
If only they could come up with a credible plan.
We have a credible plan. Its not a great plan but its entirely credible. It delivers Brexit but it is a soft Brexit with close economic links to the EU being maintained reflecting the concerns of remainers. It is not without risk but there are no risk free options available. MPs just need to STFU and vote for it.
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
Or even how May's deal came about. Did we all go to sleep for two years? last I remember the 'Dream Team' of Davis Johnson and Fox were put in charge. No one could ask them questions because it would give our negotiating position away.....several photo ops and two years later they returned and Davis and Johnson resigned.
Except that is bollocks. The majority of LAB voters and MPs are remainers. It is just the leadership, the Milne/Corbyn gang, is out of step with party voters - a highly dangerous situation.
The Manifesto supported BREXIT. Labour added a 50 year record increase in votes.
Worth reading it in detail. Yes, it respects the referendum, but the bulk of Labour's text was about the benefits of staying close to Europe and remaining within as many of the pan-European frameworks as possible, the specific commitment they make is to "seek a Brexit deal" (my emphasis) that protects the UK's current benefits, and the Brexit section ends with a commitment to a truly meaningful vote on any deal in Parliament.
It could be argued that deciding to remain in the circumstances where such a deal turns out to be completely unchievable would not be a contradiction of the maninfesto (i.e. a truly meaningful vote should include the option of rejection). It could also be argued that voting for A50 and giving the Brexiters the best part of three years to come up with a credible, workable and beneficial way forward - and seeing them fail - is giving quite sufficient respect to the referendum result.
And it could be argued that the referendum result will only have been respected when the politicians do what we told them to do - leave the EU.
If only they could come up with a credible plan.
We have a credible plan. Its not a great plan but its entirely credible. It delivers Brexit but it is a soft Brexit with close economic links to the EU being maintained reflecting the concerns of remainers. It is not without risk but there are no risk free options available. MPs just need to STFU and vote for it.
Yes I recognise it's an achievable plan. If those MPs who have argued most strongly for Brexit would champion it as a sensible first step, they could easily have had the high ground.
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
Or even how May's deal came about. Did we all go to sleep for two years? last I remember the 'Dream Team' of Davis Johnson and Fox were put in charge. No one could ask them questions because it would give our negotiating position away.....several photo ops and two years later they returned and Davis and Johnson resigned.
Is it any wonder people are confused
Rarely has Howe's famous cricketing analogy of the team captain breaking the bats of the batsmen before they make it to the crease seemed so apposite. Not that I am suggesting that that those 3 could not have been clean bowled without her hindrance.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
FWIW - and not much - my genuine preferred outcome now would be a new two-stage referendum, first with TMay's deal Yes/no, then (presuming we'd say No). Remain/Revoke v No Deal (and I presume Remain would win)
HOWEVER, and I am entirely serious, all this should only be done with the understanding that we have a simultaneous Royal Truth and Revenge Tribunal with the powers to send people before the courts on criminal charges: for betraying the sovereignty and interests of the British people while in political office.
This would be aimed fairly and squarely at T Blair, G Brown, N Clegg, V Cable. P Ashdown (RIFP my arse), Heseltine & Clark, Cameron and Osborne, Lord Kerr and his near neighbours, and every single fucking significant quisling of a europhile who made us sign up to Article 50, without our consent, even when promising us explicitly to grant us the power of assent (which they then denied).
That's the answer. That's how we heal the nation. Jail the europhiles, til they die. Accept that they also put us in the EU dungeon, and start over, inside, and *try* and reform from within.
But as a eurosceptic I will not accept the failure of Brexit until the authors of that inevitable failure are brought to justice and made to suffer. In prison. Without Article 50 we could have left the EU in an amiable mess, longwinded and legalistic and bilateral. The people that forced A50 on us must pay.
Otherwise, Crash-out Brexit and civil war. Fuck it.
It hasn't failed, you twit. It hasn't even started.
The one thing I'm struggling to buy is that May's deal is getting more popular.
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
Or even how May's deal came about. Did we all go to sleep for two years? last I remember the 'Dream Team' of Davis Johnson and Fox were put in charge. No one could ask them questions because it would give our negotiating position away.....several photo ops and two years later they returned and Davis and Johnson resigned.
Is it any wonder people are confused
It is hard to think of anyone from the Brexit side who has made a useful contribution to anything these past two years?
FWIW - and not much - my genuine preferred outcome now would be a new two-stage referendum, first with TMay's deal Yes/no, then (presuming we'd say No). Remain/Revoke v No Deal (and I presume Remain would win)
HOWEVER, and I am entirely serious, all this should only be done with the understanding that we have a simultaneous Royal Truth and Revenge Tribunal with the powers to send people before the courts on criminal charges: for betraying the sovereignty and interests of the British people while in political office.
This would be aimed fairly and squarely at T Blair, G Brown, N Clegg, V Cable. P Ashdown (RIFP my arse), Heseltine & Clark, Cameron and Osborne, Lord Kerr and his near neighbours, and every single fucking significant quisling of a europhile who made us sign up to Article 50, without our consent, even when promising us explicitly to grant us the power of assent (which they then denied).
That's the answer. That's how we heal the nation. Jail the europhiles, til they die. Accept that they also put us in the EU dungeon, and start over, inside, and *try* and reform from within.
But as a eurosceptic I will not accept the failure of Brexit until the authors of that inevitable failure are brought to justice and made to suffer. In prison. Without Article 50 we could have left the EU in an amiable mess, longwinded and legalistic and bilateral. The people that forced A50 on us must pay.
Otherwise, Crash-out Brexit and civil war. Fuck it.
Except that is bollocks. The majority of LAB voters and MPs are remainers. It is just the leadership, the Milne/Corbyn gang, is out of step with party voters - a highly dangerous situation.
The Manifesto supported BREXIT. Labour added a 50 year record increase in votes.
Worth reading it in detail. Yes, it respects the referendum, but the bulk of Labour's text was about the benefits of staying close to Europe and remaining within as many of the pan-European frameworks as possible, the specific commitment they make is to "seek a Brexit deal" (my emphasis) that protects the UK's current benefits, and the Brexit section ends with a commitment to a truly meaningful vote on any deal in Parliament.
It could be argued that deciding to remain in the circumstances where such a deal turns out to be completely unchievable would not be a contradiction of the maninfesto (i.e. a truly meaningful vote should include the option of rejection). It could also be argued that voting for A50 and giving the Brexiters the best part of three years to come up with a credible, workable and beneficial way forward - and seeing them fail - is giving quite sufficient respect to the referendum result.
And it could be argued that the referendum result will only have been respected when the politicians do what we told them to do - leave the EU.
If only they could come up with a credible plan.
We have a credible plan. Its not a great plan but its entirely credible. It delivers Brexit but it is a soft Brexit with close economic links to the EU being maintained reflecting the concerns of remainers. It is not without risk but there are no risk free options available. MPs just need to STFU and vote for it.
Yes I recognise it's an achievable plan. If those MPs who have argued most strongly for Brexit would champion it as a sensible first step, they could easily have had the high ground.
On that I agree. The ERG have been complete arseholes who deserve to lose.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
Not any more massive than the confident forecasts of an immediate recession on the vote and the loss of 500k jobs (actual gain to date 800k+).
I think Brexiting with May’s deal is still most likely, because it is the simplest and most obvious resolution from here. How May gets a majority onside though is difficult to see. Yes, we see a softening in Tory antipathy, but surely a hardened block of a dozen or so will never be brought round, and she needs every vote.
And, I rather think that as the panic sets in (and news that 50% of Brexit civil servants have started to stockpile food does not surprise me) there will be a sinew-stiffening effect on Opposition parties rather than a resolve-weakening one. May is turning Brexit into a judgment of her judgment, and I can’t see that ending well for her.
The only thing I am confident about is that she will not be PM by the end of the year.
I think in the end the EU agree to a long dated limitation on the backstop. Even 10 years would be enough to get most Tory waverers on side and 10 years is more than enough to resolve whatever border issues that might exist.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
Not any more massive than the confident forecasts of an immediate recession on the vote and the loss of 500k jobs (actual gain to date 800k+).
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
Exactly. All this "more information available" rubbish is tedious. And the reason why many who voted for Brexit do not want a re-run is not because they are scared they will lose but more that the pro-Remain camp would do their utmost to weight the campaign in their favour.
A re-run is not what we are talking about though is it? It would be one of the following:
Deal versus No Deal exit Deal versus Remain No Deal exit versus Remain or Deal v No Deal v Remain
None of the above is a re-run of Leave versus Remain.
If it was the first option how could any Leaver object?
Identify what goods you cannot easily replace with something else. Is there one one brand of juice your kids like? Are you addicted to Nescafé Azera? Have you taken the same multivitamin for the last 436 days, and counting?
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
The problem that remain has is that they have focused only on short term effects. Roads, clogged up, drugs supply intermittent, food supply disrupted. It is guaranteed that these short term effects will be overcome and quickly. Even a recession will last only 12 to 18 months and the economy will be growing again (see GFC for timescales).
The remain campaign can not let no deal happen because it will kill their campaign to rejoin. The other problem they have is that the also can not let May's deal happen because the EU will be vindictive or play their cards in the negotiations and this will be seen by the public and harden attitudes of why do we want to deal with these people. Remain is not in a good position and has to find a way to cancel Brexit completely, but that will have consequences.
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
Exactly. All this "more information available" rubbish is tedious. And the reason why many who voted for Brexit do not want a re-run is not because they are scared they will lose but more that the pro-Remain camp would do their utmost to weight the campaign in their favour.
A re-run is not what we are talking about though is it? It would be one of the following:
Deal versus No Deal exit Deal versus Remain No Deal exit versus Remain or Deal v No Deal v Remain
None of the above is a re-run of Leave versus Remain.
If it was the first option how could any Leaver object?
All but the top one are a re-run of leave vs. remain. Why should remain get another shot, when the message in 2016 was clear.
Identify what goods you cannot easily replace with something else. Is there one one brand of juice your kids like? Are you addicted to Nescafé Azera? Have you taken the same multivitamin for the last 436 days, and counting?
You can probably save money on the last item. A complete waste of time.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
I don't think that is remotely the case. The remain position has been all over the place. It's not a good look but at least there is no coherent set of arguments that can be shot down.
Speaking personally, the biggest horror from my point of view has already happened. The loss of the EMA is a bit blow to the UK. And given that David Davies doubted that would even occur I'd call that a massive blow to the credibility of the people who have advocated leaving.
Does anyone have any panic buying/ stockpiling tips?
Loo rolls. As well as their obvious applications, you can use them to build a fort as well.
That’s a lifesaver. The labels of Baked Bean tins are of unknown absorbency. And iPads are useless despite replacing most other paper applications. Such use is not covered by Apple Care.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
I don't think that is remotely the case. The remain position has been all over the place. It's not a good look but at least there is no coherent set of arguments that can be shot down.
Speaking personally, the biggest horror from my point of view has already happened. The loss of the EMA is a bit blow to the UK. And given that David Davies doubted that would even occur I'd call that a massive blow to the credibility of the people who have advocated leaving.
The same EMA who are struggling to get their London staff to move away from London? The EBA are going to find it even tougher.
FPT @recidivist, it looks to me as if the economy took off like a rocket after Howe's 1981 budget, and for a very long time. Growth averaged 3% p.a up till the end of the century, at a time when the population was growing slowly.
So, the 364 were incorrect.
Unless Sir Geoffrey Howe was personally drilling off Aberdeen, he deserves no credit for Mrs Thatcher's magic money tree -- North Sea Oil.
Oil peaked as a share of national output in 1985, but the economy continued to do well, long after that date.
lol, peaked , not dropped. You southerners just hate to admit the southern prosperity was provided by stolen goods.
Granted, there are significant differences in the nature of the fields developed, and the timing of exploration (and it is also true that Norway benefited from deep water exploration experience and technology pioneered earlier by the UK), but we cannot claim to have managed the assets optimally.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
I don't think that is remotely the case. The remain position has been all over the place. It's not a good look but at least there is no coherent set of arguments that can be shot down.
Speaking personally, the biggest horror from my point of view has already happened. The loss of the EMA is a bit blow to the UK. And given that David Davies doubted that would even occur I'd call that a massive blow to the credibility of the people who have advocated leaving.
The same EMA who are struggling to get their London staff to move away from London? The EBA are going to find it even tougher.
Well the dislocation of the staff themselves is certainly unfortunate, but I was thinking bigger picture of the loss of influence and contacts in the pharma world. But if we leave we have to give it up. Brexit means Brexit. I am still waiting for somebody to come up with a benefit from Brexit to offset the known drawbacks.
It will be interesting to see Brexit polling as the fear kicks in.
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
The danger for Remain/Rejoin would come if we left, and the promised horrors did not appear. That would be a massive blow to their credibility.
I don't think that is remotely the case. The remain position has been all over the place. It's not a good look but at least there is no coherent set of arguments that can be shot down.
Speaking personally, the biggest horror from my point of view has already happened. The loss of the EMA is a bit blow to the UK. And given that David Davies doubted that would even occur I'd call that a massive blow to the credibility of the people who have advocated leaving.
The same EMA who are struggling to get their London staff to move away from London? The EBA are going to find it even tougher.
Well the dislocation of the staff themselves is certainly unfortunate, but I was thinking bigger picture of the loss of influence and contacts in the pharma world. But if we leave we have to give it up. Brexit means Brexit. I am still waiting for somebody to come up with a benefit from Brexit to offset the known drawbacks.
Well the dislocation of the staff themselves is certainly unfortunate, but I was thinking bigger picture of the loss of influence and contacts in the pharma world. But if we leave we have to give it up. Brexit means Brexit. I am still waiting for somebody to come up with a benefit from Brexit to offset the known drawbacks.
Blue passports.
No.
We could always have had blue ones. It is a national competence
Comments
* UK fails to pass the deal, TMay loyalists and no-dealers alike agree they'd like some more time to agree a deal or prepare for not having one
* Some or all of the member states decline, saying "come the fuck in or fuck the fuck off"
* TMay makes a strong patriotic stand about Britain's right to faff around inconclusively
* Beastly foreigner(s) continue to refuse
* TMay revokes Article 50, while telling the Brexiters that Brexit is still on and it's just a cunning and devious plan to get a better deal from these dastardly foreigners who are trying to back Britain into a corner
* Plans to re-Brexit continue but year after year the second Article 50 notification fails to happen, until most the people who voted for it are dead
My prediction is that if they did mouse out and we end up in no deal, they'll mostly be kicked out in due course anyway. Indeed the consequences could kill the current parties.
Our economy is about the same size as France's. That was the case at the start of Mrs Thatcher's innings and it is true now. We have fallen further behind Germany and America. Any talk of British exceptionalism under either colour government is wrong.
Firstly, it will guarantee a legacy of bitterness whatever the result. It will say to the voters you are not in charge, you can vote how you like, but we will decide. We being the important people. That won't go down well.
Secondly, I agree with Mr Meeks, it will be close and resolve nothing. So why do it? To exult in the fact that they can ignore a democratic result. A shot across the bows. To keep the stoats and weasels in the wildwood and away from influence. Perhaps even to cement the differences?
Remember May spent two years saying "support me or you're betraying Britain" and ignored all other ideas - so there is zero support for her deal from the opposition, and plenty who've condemned it on her own benches.
Can anyone provide a name of any MP currently against the deal who has changed their mind? You need about 100 names before the deal passes - can anyone supply the first?
The interesting thing is how much this gets under the skin of Tory apologists. It wasn't me who brought up this letter. I am quite happy that my ideas of how the British economy was working at the time, and what the effect of the actions of the government were. The economists' letter is a trivial matter in the history of a great nation. But it does illustrate one thing that is a pretty abiding feature of British public life. The Conservatives who represent the interests of the elite and the wealthy are at pains to claim a unique ability with the economy. That is after all the only reason for the rest of us to consider voting for them.
It is of course a complete fantasy. The Conservatives have no special insight into the way the economy works. Indeed how could they? How would they keep this arcane knowledge to themselves if they did possess it? In reality the performance of the economy as been pretty similar under both parties if, and only if, you take the unusually bad performance of the early years of the Thatcher out of the picture as an outlier.
The only reason you or any other brexiteer is against it is because you are afraid to lose this once in a lifetime opputunity to leave.
Let’s see if the people have changed their mind. Dont be a coward or a hypocrite.
Leave with May's deal, the DUP vote with the opposition in a VONC.
Leave with no deal, Tory wets resign the whip, VONC with them abstaining.
I'd say that another would be that the losers won't accept the outcome. The losers did not accept the outcome after 2016. They won't do so after 2019.
Wouldn't it be safer to be among the crowd, later on?
What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum.
The only way to avoid a referendum is an election.
If there is an election, there must be a decent chance of a complete political realignment.
There needs to be a party of "Real Brexit". That can't be a party that includes Grieve or Soubry.
There needs to be a party of "No Brexit". That can't be a party that includes Corbyn.
FPT:
1. Obviously.
2. I would say that that is now something like a 52:48 bet but my guess (I am not brave enough to put money on it) is that we will leave on the due date. My further guess is that if we ask for a extension the EU will say no. Revocation will be just too traumatic.
3. Despite the best and earnest efforts of the ERG to bring this (and a failure to leave) about I don't see how we get to a second referendum at the moment. There would need to be a change of leadership, probably of both parties first. Possible, not likely.
4. Agreed.
5. Disagree. I think this is a much easier option to bring about than referendum #2: vote harder. If the Commons is stuck the mechanisms to a GE seem to me both easier and more likely to be followed. The interesting question is whether the current major parties can get through such an election with their current shape and range of views. A split is very possible.
6. It is very difficult to see May surviving the year unless she can get her deal through Parliament but I still think that is more likely than Alastair, even if it is not at the first attempt. I would say she is odds on to still be there, just. Corbyn baffles me. He is so useless and stupid that I have never really seen the attraction but it is plainly there so far as the membership is concerned and I think he is even more likely to survive. Cable will go this year, surely.
7. My fear is that UK politics will look very much the same in a year's time with deep divisions in the major parties, weak leadership, no clear sense of direction and a PM in place because the alternatives all seem worse. So I am not going to agree with that either.
"What it wouldn't resolve would be that people are getting angry at each other and arguing on the internet. That's something that can't be avoided with a referendum."
People argue about GE results, but they don't re-run it before the new government takes power unless there's a no majority result. With a referendum, you always have a result.
At midnight on June 23rd 2016, I thought Remain had won and I shook hands with one my Remainer friends. The problem now is that Pandora's Box has been opened and it can't be closed. Brexit has to go ahead or democracy has to be ignored.
An election IS coming, and seems likely to be sooner rather than later.
I expect Theresa May to lead her party into the election by means of being the sitting PM and Tory leader at the time where the election is triggered (probably not by her). The Tory manifesto will commit a Tory government to delivering her deal. A deal which despite objections by crazies IS real Brexit as defined by the referendum question.
I expect Jeremy Corbyn to lead his party into the election by means of being the sitting LOTO and Labour Leader. The Labour manifesto will doubtlessly restate the bullshit vague "we will negotiate a deal" despite the EU saying "no you won't".
Neither leader's manifesto will stand up to 5 minutes of scrutiny. Neither manifesto will have the open support of the majority of MPs being elected on it. MPs of both parties will be openly organised into alternate power structures outside the control of their leadership.
NewKIP - led by Farage I suppose - will stand in heavy leave constituencies with various unknown unvetted candidates expecting to take many thousands of votes from leave means leave voters who previously voted for both parties. A few will likely get elected and we have seen in this parliament what happens when unknown unvetted people get elected by accident.
Fun fun fun.
N.B. The LibDems you say? Do they still exist...?
To Newkip as the one true king of Brexit?
Recant Brexit and lead the "centrists" to glory?
On MPs trying to prevent it , if you had a non-binding referendum on Deal vs Remain I have little doubt MPs would pass legislation afterwards implementing "deal" if that was the result. But Leave enthusiasts would be within their rights to worry that they might not, so it would make sense to make it binding, like the AV referendum. Technically parliament could of course repeal the legislation making it binding after the fact, but the current stalemate is due to no faction in parliament having a big enough majority to pass legislation for its preferred course, so the chances of them doing this are basically zero.
I've met very few people who want to re-run the referendum because they have more information, I meet many who want to re-run the referendum because they want to change the result. Their excuse … someone else has more information.
That will always be the cry. When do we stop? When you have the right result.
Jeremy Corbyn will never be Prime Minister
23rd June 2016 the UK votes to leave the EU by a narrow majority.
Following the Miller case the UK Parliament passes an Act of Parliament, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to authorise the intimation of an Article 50 notice.
29th March 2017: the Article 50 notice is served.
8th June 2017 UK GE with both major parties committed to implementing Brexit making it a non issue in the campaign to May's considerable disappointment.
26th June 2018 The UK then passes another Act of Parliament, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to withdraw from the EU and to remove EU law as a part of our law.
In accordance with the terms of that Act we still need a MV (to be held by 21.1.19) AND a third Act of Parliament to withdraw from the EU.
Various MPs and MSPs get a ruling from the CJEU that we can unilaterally withdraw the Art 50 notice provided it is done in accordance with our own constitutional procedures. FWIW I think this would require another Act of Parliament repealing the earlier authorisation.
It really is remarkable how difficult the remainers have managed to make this. At every stage more hurdles are created and crisis points are manufactured. It has significantly contributed to 2 years of indecision and uncertainty. Will they finally succeed in reversing the 2016 decision and all the subsequent decisions? They are certainly going to give it a damn good try.
But really, three Acts of Parliament? Its almost as if we were even more entangled in the EU web than the darkest fantasies of the Brexiteers could possibly have imagined.
And the reason why many who voted for Brexit do not want a re-run is not because they are scared they will lose but more that the pro-Remain camp would do their utmost to weight the campaign in their favour.
And, I rather think that as the panic sets in (and news that 50% of Brexit civil servants have started to stockpile food does not surprise me) there will be a sinew-stiffening effect on Opposition parties rather than a resolve-weakening one. May is turning Brexit into a judgment of her judgment, and I can’t see that ending well for her.
The only thing I am confident about is that she will not be PM by the end of the year.
Note the US market rose 5% yesterday.
The UK has reason to be depressed on earnings grounds and reason to continue to be depressed on earnings grounds.
Is it any wonder people are confused
The argument that we should Brexit “because democracy” is belied by what is now persistent polling against Brexit. The economic argument for Brexit was given up almost immediately after the referendum, and the sovereignty argument has been tested to destruction.
All that is left is control of immigration, but this is not to be dismissed lightly. Remainers need an argument on immigration.
First you threaten to burn my house down and now I’m to be subject to Royal Tribunal!
The Remainers need only point out that politicians not controlling numbers is not fixed by Brexit.
Deal versus No Deal exit
Deal versus Remain
No Deal exit versus Remain
or Deal v No Deal v Remain
None of the above is a re-run of Leave versus Remain.
If it was the first option how could any Leaver object?
Identify what goods you cannot easily replace with something else. Is there one one brand of juice your kids like? Are you addicted to Nescafé Azera? Have you taken the same multivitamin for the last 436 days, and counting?
The remain campaign can not let no deal happen because it will kill their campaign to rejoin. The other problem they have is that the also can not let May's deal happen because the EU will be vindictive or play their cards in the negotiations and this will be seen by the public and harden attitudes of why do we want to deal with these people.
Remain is not in a good position and has to find a way to cancel Brexit completely, but that will have consequences.
Speaking personally, the biggest horror from my point of view has already happened. The loss of the EMA is a bit blow to the UK. And given that David Davies doubted that would even occur I'd call that a massive blow to the credibility of the people who have advocated leaving.
https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-£400-billion-worth-oil-revenue
Granted, there are significant differences in the nature of the fields developed, and the timing of exploration (and it is also true that Norway benefited from deep water exploration experience and technology pioneered earlier by the UK), but we cannot claim to have managed the assets optimally.
We could always have had blue ones. It is a national competence