Brexit Referendum Superthread

ArmaniJeanss

For what its worth one of the big beasts of the Torys Kenneth Clarke will vote against triggering A50. Though I'm not sure how many fellow MPs he can bring along with him these days.

Peregrinus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No serious person believes that Parliament is going to fly in the face of the referendum result, and block the invocation of Article 50.

This.

Parliament legislated to hold the referendum. They didn’t legislate for the outcome of the referendum to have any direct legal effect, but it defies common sense to think that they are going to ignore it when a Brexit Bill comes before them. Plus it should be remembered that all of the Tory MPs were elected on the back of a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but also to “respect” the result.

Just as May was a (tepid) remainer but now accepts that the referendum result mandates the government to implement Brexit, so I don’t think the Tory parliamentary party will have too much difficulty coming to the same conclusion.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Today's judgment simply means Parliament will influence the procedure, or delay it (which is unlikely, because of the extra uncertainty a delay would create).

Also this. Except that I think some delay is fairly likely.

The real consequence of the judgment (assuming it is upheld on appeal, but FWIW I expect it will be) is that the government will need to bring the parliamentary party along with it. Governments are generally well-positioned to do this through a combination of threats, blandishments, appeals to party loyalty and the judicious distribution of junior offices on the government payroll, and in this case the threat of an early general election - MPs loathe elections - will also be available.

But the business of bringing the parliamentary party along does involve the government being a bit more open about its intentions and objectives than it has been up to now. It’s reasonable for the party to say “look, it’s difficult for us to endorse giving Art 50 notice when we have no clue as to where you intend this to take the UK. What is your long-term vision for the UK after Brexit? What kind of post-Brexit relationship with the EU are we working towards? What do we need to acheive in our discussions with the EU in order to ensure that the advantage Brexit is supposed to offer will actually accrue to the UK?” And so forth. In truth, the parliamentary party would find it embarassing to have to approve Brexit without those questions having been asked and answered, and the answers listened to. And the government knows this.

Up to now, the government has been very coy about questions like this. On the charitable view, this is because they are playing their cards close to their chest, pending the start of negotiations with the EU. On the less charitable view - and I myself am of this view - this is because they haven’t got any cards, or because they have no f@cking clue how they are going to play the cards they do have. And if they have to take Parliament (and therefore the public at large) into their confidence, this will become embarrassingly obvious.

I think this is one of the areas where delay may arise. Putting together a practical Brexit strategy requires some tough choices to be made, and some fond expectations to be dashed. There has been a large degree of denial about this up to now, exemplified by people claiming that you can have immigration control while participating the single market, that you can be in a customs union with the EU and still make trade deals with third countries, etc, etc. The government needs to identify all these choices that need to be made, and it needs to make them, and it needs to put together a case to justify and defend the choices it has made from the howls of outrage that will come from one, or other, or both sides. And it needs to do all that before it can present the issue to Parliament.

And, when it has done that, and goes to Parliament, as I understand it it’s not just a matter of getting a resolution through the Commons. They need an Act of Parliament; it has to go through all stages in the Commons, then all stages in the Lords. And, with legislation of such constitutional significance, I don’t think rushing it through is going to be acceptable.

So all-in-all I think serving Art 50 notice by the end of March is looking ambitious.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There seems to be a contradiction between the Court's decision today, and the same Court's decision last week, in that spectacularly bonkers Northern Ireland case. There is an inconsistency there which will be teased out before the Supreme Court.

Nitpick: Not the same court. This judgment is from the High Court of England and Wales; last week’s was from the High Court of Northern Ireland. Completely different bunch of lads. But appeals from both courts go to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Brennans Row

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

This.

Parliament legislated to hold the referendum. They didn’t legislate for the outcome of the referendum to have any direct legal effect, but it defies common sense to think that they are going to ignore it when a Brexit Bill comes before them. Plus it should be remembered that all of the Tory MPs were elected on the back of a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but also to “respect” the result.

But by this definition all tories from areas that voted to remain over exit (and there are multiple of them as far as I remember) should vote against article 50. Not only because they are there to represent their regional area but also from simple self preservation in the upcoming election where they would have to explain why they voted for it to a mainly remain area.

MPs are Representatives, not Delegates.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

This.

Parliament legislated to hold the referendum. They didn’t legislate for the outcome of the referendum to have any direct legal effect, but it defies common sense to think that they are going to ignore it when a Brexit Bill comes before them. Plus it should be remembered that all of the Tory MPs were elected on the back of a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but also to “respect” the result.

Just as May was a (tepid) remainer but now accepts that the referendum result mandates the government to implement Brexit, so I don’t think the Tory parliamentary party will have too much difficulty coming to the same conclusion.


Also this. Except that I think some delay is fairly likely.

The real consequence of the judgment (assuming it is upheld on appeal, but FWIW I expect it will be) is that the government will need to bring the parliamentary party along with it. Governments are generally well-positioned to do this through a combination of threats, blandishments, appeals to party loyalty and the judicious distribution of junior offices on the government payroll, and in this case the threat of an early general election - MPs loathe elections - will also be available.

But the business of bringing the parliamentary party along does involve the government being a bit more open about its intentions and objectives than it has been up to now. It’s reasonable for the party to say “look, it’s difficult for us to endorse giving Art 50 notice when we have no clue as to where you intend this to take the UK. What is your long-term vision for the UK after Brexit? What kind of post-Brexit relationship with the EU are we working towards? What do we need to acheive in our discussions with the EU in order to ensure that the advantage Brexit is supposed to offer will actually accrue to the UK?” And so forth. In truth, the parliamentary party would find it embarassing to have to approve Brexit without those questions having been asked and answered, and the answers listened to. And the government knows this.

Up to now, the government has been very coy about questions like this. On the charitable view, this is because they are playing their cards close to their chest, pending the start of negotiations with the EU. On the less charitable view - and I myself am of this view - this is because they haven’t got any cards, or because they have no f@cking clue how they are going to play the cards they do have. And if they have to take Parliament (and therefore the public at large) into their confidence, this will become embarrassingly obvious.

I think this is one of the areas where delay may arise. Putting together a practical Brexit strategy requires some tough choices to be made, and some fond expectations to be dashed. There has been a large degree of denial about this up to now, exemplified by people claiming that you can have immigration control while participating the single market, that you can be in a customs union with the EU and still make trade deals with third countries, etc, etc. The government needs to identify all these choices that need to be made, and it needs to make them, and it needs to put together a case to justify and defend the choices it has made from the howls of outrage that will come from one, or other, or both sides. And it needs to do all that before it can present the issue to Parliament.

And, when it has done that, and goes to Parliament, as I understand it it’s not just a matter of getting a resolution through the Commons. They need an Act of Parliament; it has to go through all stages in the Commons, then all stages in the Lords. And, with legislation of such constitutional significance, I don’t think rushing it through is going to be acceptable.

So all-in-all I think serving Art 50 notice by the end of March is looking ambitious.


Nitpick: Not the same court. This judgment is from the High Court of England and Wales; last week’s was from the High Court of Northern Ireland. Completely different bunch of lads. But appeals from both courts go to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Good post. I actually don't think an election is a threat she can't make. If she threatens an election it will be run on hard Brexit versus soft Brexit which would split the Tory party but not Labour or Lib Dems as much.
Perhaps of the two major choices that need to be made something along the lines of staying in the Customs Union but not in the Single market and taking anything they can get on immigration. It may not be possible to find something economically and politically possible when the issues are addressed comprehensively.
I would not rule out a second referendum as the only way out especically if voter sentiment shifts away from Brexit to say 55-45.
Vote could be on soft (customs + single market) or hard Brexit.
(It can't shift more than 55-45 in the time because of British media influence.)

Lemming

Whislt I have little doubt that the march towards Brexit Magical Unicorn Land will continue albeit at a slower pace, the government's lack of any coherent plan is going to be stripped bare and I dare say that more than a few MPs will be shifting very uncomfortably in their seats at the prospect of having to go back to their constituents explaining why the magical unicorns are not forthcoming, and in the event of a hard brexit coinciding with significant job losses and a very likely tightening of social welfare criteria/payments from a reduced tax take. That prospect should stiffen a few spines and lead more MPs to question whether or not the best deal possible is not to invoke Article Fifty over the alternatives given that it's either a hard brexit, no surplus cash, and a massive shock to the socio-economic landscape of Britain that will take decades to undo or soft Brexit, no surplus cash, and left at the mercy of "Johnny-Foreigner" legislation anyway.

djpbarry

An election could be very risky. Apart from adding to the existing political uncertainty, there’s absolutely no guarantee that May would end up with a more favourable Commons. There’s no guarantee that she’d even be PM afterward. There is evidence that public opinion swung in favour of remain in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it’s possible that an election fought on the subject of Brexit would result in more MPs in favour of a soft Brexit than there are already (and there are already a lot). I’m not sure an election is really worth the risk (for May, I mean) – seems very unlikely it would result in a more pro-Hard Brexit house.

nc6000

Is this an option? Appeal the Brexit decision to Europe?

https://twitter.com/EuropaUnitedEU/status/794282513405460482

Zubeneschamali

djpbarry wrote: »

An election could be very risky.

I don't see how. There is no "Remain" party, unless you count the LibDems who are down and out for the next few years, or Labour, who are completely unenthusiastic.

Maybe the SNP could run candidates in England and Wales on a solid Remain platform? :pac::pac::pac:

Calina

nc6000 wrote: »

Is this an option? Appeal the Brexit decision to Europe?

https://twitter.com/EuropaUnitedEU/status/794282513405460482

They can't appeal on a point of UK law necessarily but I understand they could rule on the reversibility of Article 50 if that was disputed. Currently both sides assume it's non reversible.

Bit cynical

Calina wrote: »

They can't appeal on a point of UK law necessarily but I understand they could rule on the reversibility of Article 50 if that was disputed. Currently both sides assume it's non reversible.

If they ruled it reversible, it would essentially render the two year negotiation limit as meaningless.

demfad

djpbarry wrote: »

An election could be very risky. Apart from adding to the existing political uncertainty, there’s absolutely no guarantee that May would end up with a more favourable Commons. There’s no guarantee that she’d even be PM afterward. There is evidence that public opinion swung in favour of remain in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it’s possible that an election fought on the subject of Brexit would result in more MPs in favour of a soft Brexit than there are already (and there are already a lot). I’m not sure an election is really worth the risk (for May, I mean) – seems very unlikely it would result in a more pro-Hard Brexit house.

Also to secure a pro hard Brexit house she would have to change many of the (soft Brexit) Tory candidates, which would be unmanageable.

Just to note lastest poll is 51-49 for Brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-majority-uk-remain-eu-theresa-may-article-50-second-referendum-latest-a7395811.html

I think the various reasons for voting Brexit are fairly entrenched. A deteriorating economic situation might not change that much especially because the Brexit-media will blame the fact that it hasnt happened.

BlitzKrieg

I think you misread that its 51-49 against brexit

A majority of voters now want the UK to remain in the EU, a poll has suggested.

Remaining is now backed by an extremely slim majority of 51 per cent, versus 49 per cent who wish to leave the EU.

Lemming

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't see how. There is no "Remain" party, unless you count the LibDems who are down and out for the next few years, or Labour, who are completely unenthusiastic.

TBH., the LibDems have made some gains locally since their absolute drubbing int he GE, and their support base has grown with the ongoing debacle that is the Labour party implosion as a lot of disaffected members leave the ranks. On the flipside, I can see the LibDems soaking up some disaffected Tory voters angry with the behaviour of the current government regards Brexit. I also could see the LibDems getting a LOT of young voters given the voting demographic of the referendum.

Whether or not that's enough for the LibDems to become viable as an opposition party with clout is finger in the air stuff, albeit unlikely imo

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

An election could be very risky. Apart from adding to the existing political uncertainty, there’s absolutely no guarantee that May would end up with a more favourable Commons. There’s no guarantee that she’d even be PM afterward. There is evidence that public opinion swung in favour of remain in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, so it’s possible that an election fought on the subject of Brexit would result in more MPs in favour of a soft Brexit than there are already (and there are already a lot). I’m not sure an election is really worth the risk (for May, I mean) – seems very unlikely it would result in a more pro-Hard Brexit house.

As if to emphasise the point, another Tory MP has resigned today, supposedly in protest at what he sees as a lurch to the right by the party leadership. In particular, the government’s opposition to Brexit being debated in parliament seems to be ruffling a few feathers within the party left:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899

djpbarry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't see how. There is no "Remain" party, unless you count the LibDems who are down and out for the next few years, or Labour, who are completely unenthusiastic.

Sure, but the only support the government is going to get for a Hard Brexit is predominantly among UKIP voters – there is no mass support for what they are trying to push through.

djpbarry

demfad wrote: »

I think the various reasons for voting Brexit are fairly entrenched. A deteriorating economic situation might not change that much especially because the Brexit-media will blame the fact that it hasnt happened.

I wouldn’t be so sure – fair bit of evidence that a protest vote played a significant role.

ambro25

...and all of this UK politico-constitutional (-after a fashion) talk, without much thought yet paid to the people on other side of the table.

Who says that the EU27 are going to let the UK exit on the terms put to the UK electorate by their UK candidates anyway?

BlitzKrieg

IF certain parties make the general election *about* brexit then you could see the lib dems and SNP openly talking a coalition between them and the other remain parties from the get go, pushing for scots to vote SNP and those in wales and england to vote lib dem.

but thats got quite a few threads. It really does come down to how important both parties feel remaining is to them.

As the SNP will need to openly say they'll refrain from pushing indyref 2 for the duration of the coalition to at least put the more centre/centre right remainers in england etc at ease.

The lib dems will need to swallow pride and try and convince the british people that *another* coalition will be a good idea, this time with the SNP and other independents.

And then there's northern ireland where the remain parties there would be a an easy target for the british tabloids if anything is formally discussed with them, even when it makes sense.



If the pro - brexit group tried to push a coalition they'd have their own problems as it would be suicide for the tories to even humour the idea of a tory/ukip coalition, they'll chase off any moderates they've left to the liberal democrats in a heartbeat.

So the tories will need to win an outright majority again or at least aim for it and build some sort of support out of whats left over for a government but if its *about brexit* it means ukip will still be swinging hard causing headaches for everyone (probably why Farage called for an election today).


Which leaves the real wildcard being labour who I think will prefer not to have the election be about brexit and may come out on top because of it.

Personally if labour said they'd put it to an parliamentary vote and took away the whip for the issue and let each mp run grass root focused campaigns I wouldnt be surprised if they had a massive bounce back.

Dont know how it'll effect brexit, I know the majority of labour mps are for remain but if Crobyn did let them loose to take whatever position needed to get elected would it still be so remain heavy?

I knowa lot of people trash corbyn as anti-EU but he knows the area he represents is pro-eu and he is firmly in favour in parliamentary vote and representing his constituency so I could see him being on the remain side in a parlimentary vote.

But he didnt seem comfortably campaigning nationwide on the issue, partly because the tories had turned it into a civil war for thier party but also because maybe he does feel it is right for some areas but not all.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I think you misread that its 51-49 against brexit

There was a poll posted on this website in the recent aftermath of the referendum, which showed that although a majority now indicated they favoured Remain, a larger majority seemed to indicate it was important to respect the result.

That's not as strange as it might appear on first glance. If you take the Marriage Equality referendum last year, I voted Yes, as did most reasonable people. But if the result were No, I'd still oppose re-running the referendum.

Democracy means respecting decisions we personally, fundamentally object to.

Ireland take note.

devnull

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There was a poll posted on this website in the recent aftermath of the referendum, which showed that although a majority now indicated they favoured Remain, a larger majority seemed to indicate it was important to respect the result.

That's not as strange as it might appear on first glance. If you take the Marriage Equality referendum last year, I voted Yes, as did most reasonable people. But if the result were No, I'd still oppose re-running the referendum.

Democracy means respecting decisions we personally, fundamentally object to.

Ireland take note.

But the Brextiers always stated if it was close they would request another vote.

solodeogloria

devnull wrote: »

But the Brextiers always stated if it was close they would request another vote.

Good evening!

Who are you counting as Brexiters in this case?

As a remainer in the referendum who now just wants the UK to get on and leave, I think the democratic vote in this referendum must be absolutely respected. In any case parliament would have had a say in this debate anyway when the deal came back from Brussels.

Although, I largely do understand the importance of not showing your hand too early, if there has to be a parliamentary vote on Article 50 according to the British constitution, it must be about what kind of Brexit Britain is seeking rather than a block on Brexit at all.

I'm fairly sure most MP's are reasonable enough to understand that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

KingBrian2

Lemming wrote: »

TBH., the LibDems have made some gains locally since their absolute drubbing int he GE, and their support base has grown with the ongoing debacle that is the Labour party implosion as a lot of disaffected members leave the ranks. On the flipside, I can see the LibDems soaking up some disaffected Tory voters angry with the behaviour of the current government regards Brexit. I also could see the LibDems getting a LOT of young voters given the voting demographic of the referendum.

Whether or not that's enough for the LibDems to become viable as an opposition party with clout is finger in the air stuff, albeit unlikely imo

That is good for the Lib Dems they have been campaigning for a long time for PR and a better electoral system in the UK. Should they get more votes than the minority parties will do a lot better in the next British parliament.

Calina

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There was a poll posted on this website in the recent aftermath of the referendum, which showed that although a majority now indicated they favoured Remain, a larger majority seemed to indicate it was important to respect the result.

That's not as strange as it might appear on first glance. If you take the Marriage Equality referendum last year, I voted Yes, as did most reasonable people. But if the result were No, I'd still oppose re-running the referendum.

Democracy means respecting decisions we personally, fundamentally object to.

Ireland take note.

You'd be wrong to oppose it. Times change and things move on. We ran the divorce referendum twice. We will run a referendum on the 8th amendment at some point but we have revisited aspects of abortion several times.

The point is, democracy doesn't preclude running a subsequent referendum, and the factors which might lead to that vary. For Lisbon, for example, there were definite changes on the table with respect to administration within the Commission, for example.

There are several key pieces of information on the table in the UK now which were either glossed over or unknown on Jun 23. The extent to which the referendum legislation was poorly designed is one. The difference between single market membership versus potential free trade agreements. The potential impact on the union of Scotland to the rest, and above all else, the impact of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement where, arguably, certain aspects of Brexit may cause the UK to be in breach of the agreement. The absence of discussion on these matters prior to the referendum, plus the generally misleading nature of the exit campaign suggests that the democratic quality of the referendum on 23 June could be called into question.

All this put together favours a subsequent referendum. My primary issue is I have not enough faith in the ability of the current cabinet in the UK not to make another major hash of it again and under those circumstances, arguably, what's the point of doing it again if they just screw it up again?

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

If they ruled it reversible, it would essentially render the two year negotiation limit as meaningless.

I would tend to agree with that assessment but were there to be a question, it is not something a UK court can decide.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Who are you counting as Brexiters in this case?

Nigel Farage stated that if the result was 52-48 in favour of Remain he would not consider the matter settled and he would press for another referendum.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Nigel Farage stated that if the result was 52-48 in favour of Remain he would not consider the matter settled and he would press for another referendum.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Good evening!

One Brexiteer who wasn't on the official campaign. Not all.

Talk of how the UK should leave is the next stage here. The June 23rd vote was perhaps one of the most resounding participations in a popular vote that Britain has ever seen and the clear conclusion was to leave the EU.

Quibbling over the outcome only months later is not right. This should be acted on and I'm confident and hopeful that it will be in light of how the people voted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

One Brexiteer who wasn't on the official campaign. Not all.

Talk of how the UK should leave is the next stage here. The June 23rd vote was perhaps one of the most resounding participations in a popular vote that Britain has ever seen and the clear conclusion was to leave the EU.

Quibbling over the outcome only months later is not right. This should be acted on and I'm confident and hopeful that it will be in light of how the people voted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

UKIP is one of the key reasons the UK even had this ridiculous referendum in the first place. You're under playing the importance of him saying that.

devnull

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening! Who are you counting as Brexiters in this case?

Farage on the night of the vote when he thought he might lose.

He stated that if there was only a few percentage points in it, the question was not finished by a long long way and said there could be another vote shortly after and the vote was not a final one and some people may have been misled by the remain side.

When it became apparent that his side might win by a few percentage he said that this has to be the last vote on the matter and the result must be binding and there should never be another vote on it and the question was finished for good.

As a remainer in the referendum who now just wants the UK to get on and leave, I think the democratic vote in this referendum must be absolutely respected.

I agree, the UK is exiting the EU and it has to be respected because the public voted for that. No complaints at all with that, despite the fact the Leave campaign continue to portray all remainers as using delay tactics.

However how that is done should be decided by democratically elected representatives and not dictated to the country by one woman, if that is not allowed to happen then there is little point in having any house.

In any case parliament would have had a say in this debate anyway when the deal came back from Brussels.

If the Prime Minister for example is not answerable to the courts and does not have to put certain things to the elected representatives of the house, effectively you have a very real potential to abuse power or act like a dictator.

It effectively sets a prescient that anytime a Prime Minister might disagree with the house, he or she can simply ignore them, and nobody can stop her, the courts have no power and neither do elected representatives as it never gets as far as a public vote.

If the house are not allowed to vote and the courts are not allowed to make judgement, effectively May becomes a dictator who is bound by no rules and does not have to justify herself to anyone and can do anything at any time regardless of what her party thinks.