Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Peregrinus · 05-12-2018 09:15AM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why are Tories still calling this the biggest ever mandate? Surely it must be among the smallest with a 4 point gap.

It's a rhetorical point. The justification for the claim is that more people voted for Brexit (17,410,742) than have ever voted for anything in the entire history of the UK.

It's not a very strong point. The counter is that more people voted against Brexit (16,141,241) than have ever voted against anything in the entire history of the United Kingdom.

You can play with these numbers any way you like. We lads who took inter cert maths can work out that the margin of victory in the 2016 referendum was 1,269,501, which represents 3.8% of the total votes. By contrast, the margin of victory in the 1975 referendum (in favour of remaining in the EU) was 8,908,508, representing 34.5% of the vote. So a much larger majority, both in relative terms and in absolute terms, than in 2016.

In truth, the "largest ever mandate' claim about the 2016 referendum comes down to little more than the fact that the population of the UK was larger in 2016 than at any time before.

c.p.w.g.w · 05-12-2018 09:16AM

Calina wrote: »

First past the post has to go.

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

Peregrinus · 05-12-2018 09:19AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, no, you have this the wrong way around. In a FPTP election the candidate with the largest vote will always be elected, even if he has a minority of the overall vote and a clear majority of voters would rather have anyone but him.

VinLieger · 05-12-2018 09:46AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, no, you have this the wrong way around. In a FPTP election the candidate with the largest vote will always be elected, even if he has a minority of the overall vote and a clear majority of voters would rather have anyone but him.

Isn't the issue that smaller parties and independents are disproportionately under represented using FPtP?

Also you nearly always have a government being elected by less than 50% of the population so they are bound to be endlessly unpopular.

Example Labour in 2005 getting 35% of the votes but winning 55% of the seats.

It inevitably trends towards a two party system due to the disenfranchisement of smaller party supporters feeling their votes for their party is useless so they vote for 1 of the 2 largest parties.

First Up · 05-12-2018 09:49AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

Parliament always had the right to tell the government what to do. Every bill needs a majority to pass. However that is based on there being (a) cabinet unanimity, party cohesion and an effective whip system.

None of those are currently in operation so while parliament has the authority and means to say no to anything, there no working mechanism to produce something that a majority of any sort will say yes to.

Its interesting.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2018 09:53AM

Yes. All of these things are true. Plus, FPTP give party organisations great power at the expense of voters. In a large proportion of Uk constitutuencies the MP is effectively selected by a local party committee.

But this doesn't stop the UK being, on the whole, a very well-governmed country which has accountable governments, respects the rule of law, etc, etc. The present train-wreck isn't particularly an outcome of the UK's rather clunky electoral system, and the UK has had other refernendums which didn't end like this.

I think myself the problem is thaat the referendum is something of a novelty in the UK constitutional system, and they haven't really worked out what referndums are for, how they work, and what it is reasonable or unreasonable to expect them to achieve. I think the present episide will appear in future generations politics textbooks as an Awful Example of when not to conduct a referendum, and how not to conduct a referndum, and what not to expect from a referendum. But I don't think you necessarily need to change the electoral system to fix that. There may be other good arguments for changing the UK electoral system, but not this one.

Econ__ · 05-12-2018 09:57AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

In theory you're right and deadlock could continue right up until to the 29th March and the UK proceeds with a no deal Brexit.

I think in practice, though, the chances are fanciful. The politics will move very fast over the next 6 weeks or so, the options will be whittled down through votes, Labour will be forced to take a credible position & minds will be focused.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2018 10:02AM

Econ__ wrote: »

In theory you're right and deadlock could continue right up until to the 29th March and the UK proceeds with a no deal Brexit.

I think in practice, though, the chances are fanciful. The politics will move very fast over the next 6 weeks or so, the options will be whittled down through votes, Labour will be forced to take a credible position & minds will be focused.

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

Shelga · 05-12-2018 10:06AM

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

FrancieBrady · 05-12-2018 10:12AM

The legal advice to be published at 11am.

Will it change the debate substantially?

lawred2 · 05-12-2018 10:15AM

Shelga wrote: »

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

not just that though - such a term renders any deal worthless. Why go to all that effort making a deal full in the knowledge that the other side can just walk away when it suits..

Does Dominic Raab still believe that the UK holds all the cards?

He's not that dim is he?

Sam Russell · 05-12-2018 10:17AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

It has happened many times.

No single party gov has been elected by a majority of the popular vote since 1932. There has only been one coalition Gov in modern times.

Harold Wilson won the election in 1964 with a minority of the popular vote.

Margaret Thatcher never won more than 42% of the popular vote.

And so on ....

cml387 · 05-12-2018 10:19AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The legal advice to be published at 11am.

Will it change the debate substantially?

The only thing that strikes me is this.
Did the legal advice involve the precise nature of the legal standing of the Good Friday agreement?

flatty · 05-12-2018 10:22AM

It's interesting that that object Fox has quietly moved to back a deal, having previously opined from his vast experience as a middle of the road GP that the trade deals the UK would make would be the best and easiest in the history of humanity. Given his clear links with the "Atlantic bridge" (cringe), he obviously felt he was well in with the Americans, and was led to believe that a deal with the US was a formality which would leave him a hero at home, and in his local bank.
It's finally beginning to dawn on him that once he's out from behind the apron skirts of the EU, he's in a shark pool with a cut.
He's a coward who is now quietly trying to creep away.

Leroy42 · 05-12-2018 10:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

The one thing that I noticed above all others yesterday is that Boris was given pretty short shrift in the HoC as he blustered on about Cliffs of Dover or whatever he was rabbiting on about. I hope this signals that the MPs are finally realising (and the pathetic attempt to gather 48 letters against TM would, IMO, back up this point) that the time for unicorns and having all the cake, selling it, eating it and getting all the individual ingredients back in the cupboard is over and they now have to make some actual choices based on actual reality. This is not one credible report that says that a No Deal is the better option.

Shelga wrote: »

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

Well, I think it is always useful to listen to the other side POV, even if it is completely deluded. I listened to Sammy Wilson yesterday on Newstalk talking about how the EU always rode the smaller countries and within a few years would definitely do the same to Ireland. Unfortunately the interviewer simply gave up rather than ask him why he therefore wanted to stay in a union that was actively working against their wishes whilst wants to leave a union that he only thinks may, at some time in the future, do it.

And that is where all their arguments fall down. On their own, they all sound reasonable. But scratch the surface and there are always massive contradictions. Even the fact that a Unionist is arguing against the power of a union is totally lost on them.

Hurrache · 05-12-2018 10:37AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

Throughout yesterday there was a definitive air of optimism from remainers, with some even commenting that Brexit is now dead. I don't see it being that easy though, nothing ever is with this.

I don't know how the Grieve amendment will be executed, but if it's a straightforward parliamentary vote all that I can see happening at the moment is the vote will be split between the government and the different opposition parties.

They were united yesterday on the amendment to defeat the government, but I can't see them being united, with enough votes to defeat the government, as to what the alternative will be.

edit: The early bird catches the worm, Peregrinus was up and posting a similar response while I was still dreaming.

ambro25 · 05-12-2018 11:06AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I may as well as well be reading a paper on string theory. I've no legal background. Nor does it seem do you.

Wrong.

But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If the UK did that as a negotiation tactic then it would be clear the letter that revoked the original art. 50 process wasn't valid. This could then be challenged in the ECJ.

Would you not get a situation then where you would find that the UK would find itself outside the Union instantly after the European Court made it's ruling.

No because

(i) there is no legal mechanism to ‘eject’ a Member State from the EU (the CJEU could only ever rule that the revocation application was made in bad faith, but cannot order that the MS be outed in consequence - the 2 year period re-triggered would still run) ; and

(ii) on the basis of the AG opinion, there is a strong argument against the EU bodies and Members ever pushing for such a mechanism/outcome (‘forcing a MS out’).

It is in good part because of (ii) above, that I highly doubt that the EU would ever ‘enforce’ the good/bad faith test (refusing an Art.50 revocation on the basis of a belief -and it would have to be a belief informed by factual past behaviour- would effectively force the withdrawing MS out at the end of the running 2-year period: which EUCO participants, or EU heads, or <relevant assessors-deciders> would be ready and willing to wear that responsibility, really?)

LuckyLloyd · 05-12-2018 11:10AM

I'm consuming vast amounts of popcorn at the demise of British politics, while crossing my fingers that the demise of British society can somehow be averted. This is a time to drink in quite extraordinary events. The time for analysis and firm predictions will come next week.

Inquitus · 05-12-2018 11:12AM

Hurrache wrote: »

Throughout yesterday there was a definitive air of optimism from remainers, with some even commenting that Brexit is now dead. I don't see it being that easy though, nothing ever is with this.

I don't know how the Grieve amendment will be executed, but if it's a straightforward parliamentary vote all that I can see happening at the moment is the vote will be split between the government and the different opposition parties.

They were united yesterday on the amendment to defeat the government, but I can't see them being united, with enough votes to defeat the government, as to what the alternative will be.

edit: The early bird catches the worm, Peregrinus was up and posting a similar response while I was still dreaming.

I am not so sure, the DUP were united against the Gov yesterday, they will not vote, however, for remain. There are less Tory Remainer Rebels than their are Labour leavers. I don't see how the math can be tilted to remain, and most certainly not without a 2nd Referendum that gives a Remain result.

LuckyLloyd · 05-12-2018 11:20AM

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/

Will EU leaders frustrate a managed withdrawal for the sake of a backstop that London, Dublin and Brussels all say they never want to see activated anyway? It’s hard to say. Many of the 27 governments, mindful of their own prosperity, would want to respond to an impasse by extending the current technical arrangements pending further talks. But some Eurocrats would rather see everyone suffer than watch a post-EU Britain succeed.

So we need to prepare for the prospect of a disorderly Brexit. There would be costs for both sides. The euro crisis might flare up again, and the states nearest to Britain would take a hit. But there would be also be a heavy blow to the UK, which conducts a higher proportion of its trade across the Channel than anyone else.

How might we soften that blow? Our preparations are in a better place than they were before the summer. The lights won’t fail in Northern Ireland. Planes won’t be denied landing slots. It’s true that, to the frustration of some ministers, the Treasury has refused to invest in new customs infrastructure. Then again, why should Britain want additional customs checks? The obvious response to a no-deal Brexit is to remove all our trade barriers.

That was what turned Singapore from a poor, equatorial island into a gleaming metropolis. Singaporeans went from having half our income per head in the 1950s to nearly twice today. Why? Because in 1965, they responded to an acrimonious split with a larger neighbour (Malaysia) by slashing taxes, creating enterprise zones and opening their economy to the world.

Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped.

Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost.

But here’s the thing. We should have already embarked on these changes in anticipation of a possible breakdown. Instead, we are spending more and regulating more. EU negotiators have concluded that Theresa May has no interest in economic liberalisation. That has been the problem from the start.

I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

Leroy42 · 05-12-2018 11:23AM

Inquitus wrote: »

I am not so sure, the DUP were united against the Gov yesterday, they will not vote, however, for remain. There are less Tory Remainer Rebels than their are Labour leavers. I don't see how the math can be tilted to remain, and most certainly not without a 2nd Referendum that gives a Remain result.

Yes, and this is exactly what TM is counting on.

Sure this deal is not what the UK thought it was going to get with it set on on this journey, but it is either this or No deal, and there is very few that want that.

Remain is of course on option, but time is very much against the UK at this point. They can, it would seem, cancel A50 right up until the deadline, but the problem with that is what if the ref or vote returns leave again? They would have no time to prepare, the EU wouldn't extend A50 as there would be no point.

It really is an awful mess

LeinsterDub · 05-12-2018 11:24AM

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong.

But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

Let me put it a different way . Can you link to an article or opinion piece of anyone else who shares your view?

Econ__ · 05-12-2018 11:36AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/

I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

The EU always saw though it...Denmark's former Permanent Representative (Claus Grube) summed it up nicely.

If Brexit is to make sense somewhere, it only does so if you can improve your competitiveness by deregulating and distorting competition for goods, services, capital and qualified labour with deviating (sic) rules, state aid, lower labour costs and /or reduced regulatory costs. Otherwise, why leave the EU/EEA?

And that is what the EU fears will happen over time and why there will be strict
limits to the “creativity and flexibility” when it comes to securing a “level playing field” as this will only amount to a transfer of resources from the EU to the UK to cover as much of the cost of Brexit as the UK can get away with”.

ambro25 · 05-12-2018 11:38AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Let me put it a different way . Can you link to an article or opinion piece of anyone else who shares your view?

Sure thing: here you go, read the whole thread.

That professor of EU law, I and others are all part of, and contributing to, that ‘informed speculation’ which he mentions (and which is precisely what my earlier posts in here, were): the opinion is barely a day old, and yet to be followed-in whole or part- or dissented from by the CJEU.

Econ__ · 05-12-2018 11:39AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

Yes, but I still think the chances of no deal are overplayed. I never had it had more than 5%.

Professor Moriarty · 05-12-2018 11:44AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In all of this, the true believers have not lost sight of the prize:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/01/no-deal-now-option-left-must-respond-liberalising-economy/

I find it amusing how the mask has started to slip with some of them as the process has ground on. What sounded like conspiracy theory two and half years ago has become THE essential argument from the hardcore Brexiteer faction. The above is so unashamedly toxic it's actually quite stunning.

"Such things are not easily done in a democracy. But attitudes change when people feel they are being bullied. And, make no mistake, if the EU refused to agree with Britain even the minimal courtesies that democracies take for granted with their neighbours, people would conclude that Britain was, in effect, being blockaded. In such a climate, voters would accept reforms that, in more tranquil times, they might see as too much bother.What reforms? After unilateral free trade, the most important would be tax cuts to stimulate growth and attract investment. Corporation tax should be reduced to the OECD minimum of ten per cent, and other taxes that impair economic activity, such as fuel duty, scrapped.

Where would the money come from? Apart from the extra £39 billion that would be immediately freed up, we could drop HS2 and privatise more government assets, including land owned by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

We should repeal anti-competitive EU regulations: the Temporary Workers Directive, the rules on art sales, the GM ban, the internet restrictions – including GDPR. We should ease planning restrictions. We should also (and this won’t be popular) ensure that the City retains its global re-eminence, abolishing the EU’s MiFID rules on transparency across financial markets, removing bonus caps, giving the FCA the explicit remit of increasing competitiveness. The Bank of England, similarly, should replace its inflation target with a growth target – an apparently minor reform that is critical if we need an emergency boost."

It reads like a Tory wet dream. It's as if it was written by Fox - which is quite possible. You know, the ordinary Joe Bloggs who votes for the likes of Mogg and Johnson deserves what he gets.

bob mcbob · 05-12-2018 11:58AM

Brilliant

Liam Fox says MPs are trying to steal Brexit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46450227

But I thought the whole point of Brexit was for Parliament to "take back control"

10000maniacs · 05-12-2018 12:40PM

Looks like there is momentum behind No-Brexit
This is from The Guardian blog this morning:

Fewer than four in 10 Britons (38%) now think the UK was right to vote for Brexit, while almost half (49%) believe it was the wrong decision, the Press Association reports. The 11% gap is the widest recorded by pollsters YouGov in a regular series of monthly surveys for the Times, while the number believing Brexit was right is at its lowest and those seeing it as wrong at its highest. Virtually every poll in the sequence since the summer of 2017 has found a majority believing that the wrong decision was made in the EU referendum of 2016.

DOCARCH · 05-12-2018 12:53PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

Looks like there is momentum behind No-Brexit.

That's one possible (outside) reason why TM may just get the WA past the post!

Brexiteers may soon realise that any from of Brexit (i.e the one on offer/on the table) is better than the looming/increasing risk of no Brexit at all!

demfad · 05-12-2018 12:59PM

Econ__ wrote: »

Yes, but I still think the chances of no deal are overplayed. I never had it had more than 5%.

There are too many unknowns. For example if we knew that both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May would do everything in their power to deliver any Brexit including no deal what would the calculation be?
I would wager they were more likely to succeed than fail.

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments