Brexit discussion thread IV

Winters

How come there hasnt been a bus complaining about the £300m sent to NI every week and how it would be put into the NHS...

Leroy42

Winters wrote: »

How come there hasnt been a bus complaining about the £300m sent to NI every week and how it would be put into the NHS...

Whilst not a bus, IMO when Brexit delivers the economic blow to the UK that many predict, I can certainly envisage many in England starting to question the subvention that is paid to NI and what they get for that.

It is one of the reasons that I believe the DUP are fighting a losing battle. They may well keep NI without the UK in terms of trade, but the likely outcome is the above and even more potential hardship for NI.

Once that subvention starts getting cut then case for remaining in the Union becomes ever more distant.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

The ballot should be:

┌ Leave Option 1
└ Leave Option 2
Remain

Votes for the top two get added. Decide based on that.

I agree on this but even Leave Option 1 or Remain would have been an improvement. They essentially needed something like Chequers on the ballot sheet. Not two years later. Sure it doesn't work for the EU but would have been a decent starting point at the time of the referendum. As you say some plausible options and combining their tallies would have been preferable (or even better a PR system so you stick down EEA 1 and remain 2 if you want to avoid the cliff).

Vague option always do better than specifics as the vague option is assumed to have all the benefits of the specific and none of the downsides. Hence the win for leave because no plan was put forward the plan could not be said to have a flaw - just assume it is a plan without whatever flaw you are worried about.

Water John

With Labour it will be a Norway type deal. With the Conservatives it will be a Canada type deal. Have the election on that. The sad fact is we know the majority in Parliament at present favour a soft Brexit.

Whilst there may be a 2nd Ref, I don't see Remain as is being on the ballot paper.
As long as we don't have crash out Brexit and no hard border, I can live with that.

keane2097

I know people were hoping for a sea change Labour attitude to something akin to full steam backwards with regard to Brexit and are a bit peeved that the motion they have put forward falls well short of that, but it is important to note that this is a clear softening on the stance of their leadership based on mounting pressure from their grassroots.

Corbyn and some of his cohorts are mad to leave the EU for various reasons and so are obviously conflicted on the whole issue. Signs that they are beginning to bow to the wishes of the voters are positive and likely to be the first of several steps to a more pro-EU position.

Leroy42

keane2097 wrote: »

I know people were hoping for a sea change Labour attitude to something akin to full steam backwards with regard to Brexit and are a bit peeved that the motion they have put forward falls well short of that, but it is important to note that this is a clear softening on the stance of their leadership based on mounting pressure from their grassroots.

Corbyn and some of his cohorts are mad to leave the EU for various reasons and so are obviously conflicted on the whole issue. Signs that they are beginning to bow to the wishes of the voters are positive and likely to be the first of several steps to a more pro-EU position.

I am not annoyed that they choose either, that is the up to them. But it is clear that the membership of Labour as against Chequers, a No Deal and even Leave, yet Corbyn who promised to listen to the members and was voted in on a way of "new politics" and grassroots support, has no decided that he is in charge and he should be the determining voice in all decisions.

The very fact that Labour have not been able to come to any consensus on Brexit has given the Tories the ability to simply ignore any questions and divert any difficult issues back onto Labour since Labour cannot really hold the Government to account when they have no position to offer.

keane2097

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not annoyed that they choose either, that is the up to them. But it is clear that the membership of Labour as against Chequers, a No Deal and even Leave, yet Corbyn who promised to listen to the members and was voted in on a way of "new politics" and grassroots support, has no decided that he is in charge and he should be the determining voice in all decisions.

The very fact that Labour have not been able to come to any consensus on Brexit has given the Tories the ability to simply ignore any questions and divert any difficult issues back onto Labour since Labour cannot really hold the Government to account when they have no position to offer.

I think you are overplaying seriously overplaying the bit in bold. They have voted that 'all options are on the table'.

It is up to the grassroots to continue to pressure the leadership as to which option to pursue, but whatever way you look at it what they have now agreed is a very significant softening from 'we will respect the result of the referendum'.

Sam Russell

Winters wrote: »

They had a referendum on changing to the STV in 2011 and voted against it.

No referendum on STV.

No they had a vote on the 'alternative vote', that is vote choice No 1, then No 2.

It was felt that asking people 'to place he candidates in the order of their choice' was beyond the electorate as it was too complicated. Apparently, voters in the UK can only count up to two.

NI manages STV for all their non-Westminster elections - they must be better educated or more intelligent.

ArmaniJeanss

Sam Russell wrote: »

No referendum on STV.

No they had a vote on the 'alternative vote', that is vote choice No 1, then No 2.

It was felt that asking people 'to place he candidates in the order of their choice' was beyond the electorate as it was too complicated. A

Well if ARV couldn't get through a referendum, then clearly STV or PRSTV would have had no chance, so it's a moot point. They needed to have ARV for a generation, see that it's not the end of the world, then gradually move to STV as a next step etc.
The vote obviously wasn't helped by both main parties being against it, and the major proponents of it being the Liberals who were by then 'hated'.

Anyway, slightly on-topic, I think that ARV being rejected back then means that all the clever idea we have here about an ARV type 2nd referendum are unlikely to happen. If there is another referendum it'll have to be binary.

Rhineshark

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well if ARV couldn't get through a referendum, then clearly STV or PRSTV would have had no chance, so it's a moot point. They needed to have ARV for a generation, see that it's not the end of the world, then gradually move to STV as a next step etc.
The vote obviously wasn't helped by both main parties being against it, and the major proponents of it being the Liberals who were by then 'hated'.

Anyway, slightly on-topic, I think that ARV being rejected back then means that all the clever idea we have here about an ARV type 2nd referendum are unlikely to happen. If there is another referendum it'll have to be binary.

Then they need a 2-step ref process.

Chequers vs No Deal
Winner of above vs Remain.

Or vice versa.

Problem is, one of the three options is clearly impossible (Chequers, since a) the EU doesnt agree, b) parliament can't agree and c) it's illegal under UK law thanks to the ERG.)

The circle still has awkward corners.

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well if ARV couldn't get through a referendum, then clearly STV or PRSTV would have had no chance, so it's a moot point. They needed to have ARV for a generation, see that it's not the end of the world, then gradually move to STV as a next step etc.
The vote obviously wasn't helped by both main parties being against it, and the major proponents of it being the Liberals who were by then 'hated'.

Anyway, slightly on-topic, I think that ARV being rejected back then means that all the clever idea we have here about an ARV type 2nd referendum are unlikely to happen. If there is another referendum it'll have to be binary.

My point is that the 'alternative vote' idea was deliberately made such that it was a BS non-runner. If it was explained that 'putting the candidates in the order of your choice' was easy and what everyone actually wanted, it might have passed.

We have a referendum commission that says: 'If you vote YES then da di da, if you vote NO, then the current status will remain' or as appropriate. This was not done for the Brexit vote. It was simply IN or OUT - with no explanation of what OUT meant.

A re-run is likely to be a disaster as well - no matter the result.

Winters

"Just think about it, if we are out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU, there would have to be something to recognise that, between the Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and had access to free movement?"

Guess who said that 2 days before the referendum vote..

Great piece by Tommy Gorman.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0924/995703-tommie-gorman-brexit/

kuro68k

As a British citizen I'll start by apologising for all this nonsense. Rest assured I didn't want it and am still hoping it can be stopped.

As I see it there are a few ways to stop it happening.

- Tory rebels refuse to back deal, government loses vote
- DUP rejects the deal, government loses vote
- May forces a general election out of desperation, attacks from her own side etc.

All of those present an opportunity for a people's vote or maybe Labour will switch to just abandoning the whole thing for now, given that they won't have any time to negotiate a better deal. Withdraw Article 50, promise to try again one day, or at least ask for a time extension.

J Mysterio

May should have resigned at Chequers, if not much before

There is no time for a GE or a second referendum.

Everyone in Westminster are just running around, arms flailing, as it all falls apart. Predictable, ridiculous disaster.

Water John

And JRM is grinning, ear to ear.

Enzokk

Rhineshark wrote: »

Then they need a 2-step ref process.

Chequers vs No Deal
Winner of above vs Remain.

Or vice versa.

Problem is, one of the three options is clearly impossible (Chequers, since a) the EU doesnt agree, b) parliament can't agree and c) it's illegal under UK law thanks to the ERG.)

The circle still has awkward corners.

The second referendum question is actually more complicated than I first thought. I guess the problem is that the deal they would be voting for before March 2019 would actually not be the end deal. What they would be voting for is whether they agree with the Withdrawal Agreement and this only provides the framework for a future deal.

The UK will only get a WA if they agree to the legal backstop on NI. What happens after that in the WA can be fudged so it looks like a win to the UK. Because the EU would have the legal backstop to ensure that NI stays in the EU basically all options are still on the table with the WA.

So what they should be voting on is whether they want to continue to try and negotiate the terms of them leaving or reversing the Brexit vote and stay in the EU. Even that has serious flaws in logic I am sure.

Sassygirl1999

Brexiteers : any chance we could overturn the result of the 1169 Norman invasion of Ireland instead of a rerun of the Brexit referendum?

LuckyLloyd

keane2097 wrote: »

I know people were hoping for a sea change Labour attitude to something akin to full steam backwards with regard to Brexit and are a bit peeved that the motion they have put forward falls well short of that, but it is important to note that this is a clear softening on the stance of their leadership based on mounting pressure from their grassroots.

Corbyn and some of his cohorts are mad to leave the EU for various reasons and so are obviously conflicted on the whole issue. Signs that they are beginning to bow to the wishes of the voters are positive and likely to be the first of several steps to a more pro-EU position.

Agreed, movement in the right direction and - most crucially - a definitively different Brexit policy to the present government is very important and to be welcomed. Some will have to get around dislike for Corbyn however to work with this as a positive step first though...

keane2097

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Agreed, movement in the right direction and - most crucially - a definitively different Brexit policy to the present government is very important and to be welcomed. Some will have to get around dislike for Corbyn however to work with this as a positive step first though...

I know it's hugely jumping the gun on my part but as a firm member of the 'Brexit will never happen' club I see this as the way out that will ultimately be taken.

The Tories will implode, GE will happen, Corbyn will have the mantle of Remain Champion thrust upon him little though he wants it and they will collectively walk back from the brink via a second referendum.

Leroy42

It is not a dislike for Corbyn, at least on my part, it is disillusionment.

He came to prominence based on a popular wave of support, for things to be different, for people to be heard.

The latest example, and it is only the latest, is that he is not interested in listening, he has his views and he is not for turning. Even the fact that they had a debate on the issue when the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters are in favour of a second ref. The fact that he has been prepared to sit idly by and watch TM make such a mess of this on the basis that it will lead to him getting into government betrays all the ideals that he said he stood for.

He needs to starts delivering for the good of the people rather than his own ideological outlook.

Inquitus

keane2097 wrote: »

I know it's hugely jumping the gun on my part but as a firm member of the 'Brexit will never happen' club I see this as the way out that will ultimately be taken.

The Tories will implode, GE will happen, Corbyn will have the mantle of Remain Champion thrust upon him little though he wants it and they will collectively walk back from the brink via a second referendum.

The Tories will implode, there is not a majority in the Tory party to pass Chequers, Ceta ++ or anything else. Whether that results in a vote of no confidence being passed is not clear, Tory remainers have said they won't bring down the Government. Most likely outcome is UK ties itself in constitutional knots.

revelman

Leroy42 wrote: »

He needs to starts delivering for the good of the people rather than his own ideological outlook.

But it was his own ideological outlook that got him elected. His ideology is not compatible with the EU's neoliberalism.

Inquitus

revelman wrote: »

But it was his own ideological outlook that got him elected. His ideology is not compatible with the EU's neoliberalism.

It was the members who have kept him in power, if they are a good majority in favour of a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ticket, then he has no choice but to go along you'd think, regardless of whether he wants to?

revelman

Inquitus wrote: »

It was the members who have kept him in power, if they are a good majority in favour of a 2nd referendum with Remain on the ticket, then he has no choice but to go along you'd think, regardless of whether he wants to?

Yes, I'd probably agree. I was merely making the point that the very same membership ought to have been aware of what Corbyn's ideology entailed when they voted for him.

Leroy42

revelman wrote: »

Yes, I'd probably agree. I was merely making the point that the very same membership ought to have been aware of what Corbyn's ideology entailed when they voted for him.

Yeah, I agree with you, and I think that this should, I stress should because I am not convinced, show them that Corbyn is not some sort of special person that they should blindly follow.

My own view is that people didn't really look to deeply into his ideology, it was all something about better for everyone, anti big business, government for the many not the few type stuff.

First Up

revelman wrote:

Yes, I'd probably agree. I was merely making the point that the very same membership ought to have been aware of what Corbyn's ideology entailed when they voted for him.

Its not just Corbyn. I think Labour have concluded that even if their leaderership was 100% anti Brexit (which it obviously isn't) they know that their supporters are as divided as the rest of the population. Brexit is not the issue they want to fight the next election over.

They will adopt the usual socialist approach of fighting over who gets the most crumbs, instead of figuring out how to get a bigger cake.

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

Its not just Corbyn. I think Labour have concluded that even if their leaderership was 100% anti Brexit (which it obviously isn't) they know that their supporters are as divided as the rest of the population. Brexit is not the issue they want to fight the next election over.

They will adopt the usual socialist approach of fighting over who gets the most crumbs, instead of figuring out how to get a bigger cake.

Their membership are for staying in the EU. The non member votes they will need to win an election may not be as much in favour of the EU. We will not know this until there is an election though.

Remember that it takes about 12m or more votes to win an election, Labor has about 500 000 members. The SNP has 125 000 and the Conservatives has 124 000. That is why it is very risky to promise to follow the voice of the membership, it may not be the voice you need to win.

The SNP numbers are actually very impressive. They received 1.4m votes in 2015 and just under 1m in 2017. So they have about 10% of their votes as members. Labour received 4% of their votes in 2017 from their members and the Conservatives 0.9%.

So it is actually a little ridiculous that 0.9%-4% of the votes for a party can decide the person who will lead them and the direction they will take. And it is the EU that is undemocratic.

The Labour fudge is disappointing, but it is where it is. It will be up to the membership and the unions now to move the needle further on Corbyn from where they are now to reversing Brexit.

LuckyLloyd

Corbyn has been espousing the exact same views and societal outlook for 40 years. To claim the membership 'didn't look into it much' before voting him in (and defending his leadership against numerous MP challenges) seems naive. There's a very real reaction to the war on the poor being waged by the Conservatives via near on a decade of savage austerity.

My own belief is that if the membership clearly show an appetite to remain he will be forced to adopt that stance in stages over the next few months. Corbyn stubbornly sticks to his principles (and well he might, they've got him this far) but he is smart enough to understand where his base of support is within the party. The general membership made him and they wouldn't have difficulty getting rid of him.

So I welcome this news as potentially a significant 11th hour moment that averts this folly.

Enzokk

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Corbyn has been espousing the exact same views and societal outlook for 40 years. To claim the membership 'didn't look into it much' before voting him in (and defending his leadership against numerous MP challenges) seems naive. There's a very real reaction to the war on the poor being waged by the Conservatives via near on a decade of savage austerity.

My own belief is that if the membership clearly show an appetite to remain he will be forced to adopt that stance in stages over the next few months. Corbyn stubbornly sticks to his principles (and well he might, they've got him this far) but he is smart enough to understand where his base of support is within the party. The general membership made him and they wouldn't have difficulty getting rid of him.

So I welcome this news as potentially a significant 11th hour moment that averts this folly.

It is a fudge from the conference, but at least there is some movement. Labour has always insisted that they have their 6 tests that have to be satisfied and to be frank the first and second of those tests means the UK should remain in the EU. You cannot be better off outside the EU against being a member of the EU so their relationship will be very close to the EU. Otherwise all nations will reevaluate their membership.

Keir Starmer: Labour has six tests for Brexit – if they’re not met we won’t back the final deal in parliament

Starmer’s six tests for the Brexit deal are:

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Also John McDonnell suggested this morning that Labour is not against free movement any longer where their text before was more ambiguous about free movement. This is from the Ian Dunt linked by Demfad earlier,

However, there is one glimpse of hope among the mess. It's back to the standard Labour Kremlinology of parsing their texts for Brexit keywords, I'm afraid. But in this scenario, both the motion and McDonnell's interview contain some interesting nuggets.

The motion retains the standard Keir Starmer promise of "full participation" in the single market but then adds, fascinatingly, that Theresa May's Brexit tactics are threatening "freedom of movement".

This is unusual. Usually, Labour Brexit material carries the cowardly formulation that leaving the EU would end free movement. This is false, but it works to distance the leadership from its policy in the eyes of young metropolitan voters while reassuring their older northern voters than there will be changes to immigration policy. Instead, the motion tacitly suggests Labour is now once again pro-free movement.

It's a particularly interesting move when you consider something else McDonnell said in his interview. It was put to him that he didn't like the EU because it put limits on what a future Labour government could do. This was a reference to state aid rules, which the leadership and its outliers have insisted would prevent their socialist project being implemented.

Today, that changed. "I've heard this allegation," McDonnell said, not mentioning that it was from his own colleagues. "In our discussions, we've had with our European partners, they want a working relationship with us that's close and collaborative. They see no impediment with regard to a new relationship we're going to establish that would prevent us implementing our manifesto."

He is exactly right but he has not been prepared to admit it until now. EU state aid rules were no impediment to the Labour manifesto, and this has been demonstrated thoroughly by academic research. McDonnell seems to finally be accepting that.

So it seems that Labour has moved slightly at least. They do not see EU rules as an impediment to their agenda of nationalizing what they want to nationalize. Also they have changed their language on free movement and are all for this. This may in part due to even research that recommends that free movement end coming to the conclusion that immigration has at worst not cost the UK anything.

jooksavage

Enzokk wrote: »

So it seems that Labour has moved slightly at least. They do not see EU rules as an impediment to their agenda of nationalizing what they want to nationalize. Also they have changed their language on free movement and are all for this. This may in part due to even research that recommends that free movement end coming to the conclusion that immigration has at worst not cost the UK anything.

This would be encouraging if they were saying this 12 months ago. Too late now to start a glacial shift against Brexit.