Jump to content
Pebble thats Stubby

UK Politics: Austerity has ended - More cuts to come.

Recommended Posts

Blunders. PLural.

1. To hold a referendum to pacify his own party was a deadly sin. As playing party politics with an entire nation is really unforgiveable.

2. Trying to use the referendum as leverage to get even more concessions out of the EU to utilize in the referendum campaign was another miscalculation.

3. Approaching that referendum as half arsed as he did, that was another huge mistake.

4. Having made no preparations in case of a leave victory is politically speaking, a sin as big as the reasoning for holding the referendum in the first place.

That he then buggered off and left this mess for somebody else to sort out, so that he escapes the calamities May is in right now personally, well, you can argue that one is actually working for him. Pretty much the only thing that worked out from his entire political calculus.

As inept as May is, let's not forget who left her with the task of delivering undeliverable Brexit. Her silly little red lines, yeah, there you have again the silly conservative grassroots, that felt empowered by Cameron's referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That he then buggered off and left this mess for somebody else to sort out, so that he escapes the calamities May is in right now personally, well, you can argue that one is actually working for him. Pretty much the only thing that worked out from his entire political calculus.

 

Though he is apparently bored and thinking of a return to politics ...

I suppose he might even have had a long term comeback plan with the idea that after the disaster of Brexit people would be willing to turn back to him. With luck that one will backfire on him though - anecdotally I have heard many people all over the spectrum disparaging him either for holding the referendum in the first place or for running away immediately afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mormont said:

OK, I'm going to come back to this after dealing quickly with a minor point:

Equally, there was also the precedent of the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, which required not only a majority 'Yes' vote, but that this vote represent at least 40% of all registered voters, the barrier on which it actually fell despite a (familiar-sounding) 52%-48% vote in favour. So it would not have been unprecedented to add a qualifier to a majority vote in 2016. 

 

As this requirement was dropped in the 1997 devolution referendums, the 2014 independence referendum and did not feature in the original EU referendum the precedents were not equal, which is why I noted that there is no comparatively strong precedent for a supermajority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

As this requirement was dropped in the 1997 devolution referendums, the 2014 independence referendum and did not feature in the original EU referendum the precedents were not equal, which is why I noted that there is no comparatively strong precedent for a supermajority. 

This is somewhat confusing as an argument (it was 'dropped' but also not featured in a preceding referendum?), it's irrelevant anyway. Precedents aren't why there was no additional qualification beyond a simple majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 How quickly could a second referendum be done?

Probably in about the same time frame as a general election, so maybe 30 days at a push. Given the timeline of the next couple of weeks - May presents the text of the agreement to the Cabinet tomorrow, the EU27 meet later in the week, with a vote on the deal likely in early December (which will really be crunch time, unless a leadership challenge is launched tomorrow which is possible if unlikely) - the only time a referendum could be held would be in mid-January to early February. We technically leave the EU at the end of March.

The appetite for a referendum will probably swing decisively based on the outcome of the deal vote in Parliament. If the deal fails to get Parliamentary approval, then No Deal becomes inevitable. At that point the referendum could be held on the basis of Remain or No Deal, which is a very clear (and much clearer than in 2016) question and one that Remain would almost certainly win, albeit with a massively amount of disgruntlement from those who want Brexit-with-a-Deal and may feel coerced into what could become a rubber stamp to remain in the EU for generations to come.

What becomes more chaotic is if the deal fails to pass through Parliament but then a second referendum is held on approving the exit deal, crashing out of the EU without a deal, or Remain. That's much more controversial (because it divides the Leave vote, making a Remain victory overwhelmingly likely) and I suspect unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mormont said:

This is somewhat confusing as an argument (it was 'dropped' but also not featured in a preceding referendum?), it's irrelevant anyway. Precedents aren't why there was no additional qualification beyond a simple majority.

What's confusing? It wasn't continued after 1979 in any other referendum. As it hadn't been introduced in 1975 it wasn't discontinued in that case it just didn't feature, i.e. wasn't brought up or made a requirement. 

I'm also afraid the UK constitution is relevant here, especially when you are explaining things to Americans. If the UK had a rule that changes to the constitution subject to votes needed supermajorities it would have been more viable to impose one in the 2016 case. As nearly all the precedents point the other way requiring a supermajority in 2016 would have had little to no legitimacy. 

 

 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precedent doesn't have much to do with it. Cameron was so convinced that he'd win that he turned down the possibility of requiring a supermajority and he refused to let 16 and 17 year olds vote (despite both of those things helping his cause), so it comes down partially to his arrogance and partially to what has been the case all along, that Brexit is really an exercise in damage control within the Conservative Party to try to bring it back together after 20+ years of hard wrangling on the subject of Europe (which they only really had a respite from when they weren't in power). If he'd stuck to a supermajority rule than the Eurosceptics in his party would have strung him up and UKIP could have made further inroads against the Tories.

Of course, if he'd stuck to a supermajority rule he could have then used the 52% vote to justify taking a harder line in Europe (vetoing future expansion, an EU army, etc) to try to force the EU towards more concessions and changes and then perhaps done another vote a few years later on the results, but alas he decided on a short, sharp gambit which blew up in his face.

If there is a second vote, it would be seen as a stitch up to introduce a supermajority requirement at that time as well.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Precedent doesn't have much to do with it. Cameron was so convinced that he'd win that he turned down the possibility of requiring a supermajority and he refused to let 16 and 17 year olds vote (despite both of those things helping his cause), so it comes down partially to his arrogance and partially to what has been the case all along, that Brexit is really an exercise in damage control within the Conservative Party to try to bring it back together after 20+ years of hard wrangling on the subject of Europe (which they only really had a respite from when they weren't in power). If he'd stuck to a supermajority rule than the Eurosceptics in his party would have strung him up and UKIP could have made further inroads against the Tories.

Of course, if he'd stuck to a supermajority rule he could have then used the 52% vote to justify taking a harder line in Europe (vetoing future expansion, an EU army, etc) to try to force the EU towards more concessions and changes and then perhaps done another vote a few years later on the results, but alas he decided on a short, sharp gambit which blew up in his face.

If there is a second vote, it would be seen as a stitch up to introduce a supermajority requirement at that time as well.

If we had a system like the US where constitutional changes of a certain type require a supermajority then not insisting on it when it favoured you would probably have been silly. The onus would then have been on the Brexiteers to explain why they wanted to depart from constitutional precedent. But we don't have any such system.

 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus after two years, Her Majesty's Government, aided by the finest minds of the civil service, have left the lobby of the EU by entering the revolving door, going round in circles and entered back into the lobby of the EU having paid 39 billion for the privilege.

 

My dog is a better escape artist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cards on the table, take the deal as it mitigates 'some' risks. Or go all in and hope for a second referendum, accepting that hard 'catastrophe brexit' may be the result?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Cards on the table, take the deal as it mitigates 'some' risks. Or go all in and hope for a second referendum, accepting that hard 'catastrophe brexit' may be the result?

I am a bit risk averse (yes, that's a nice way of saying coward), so I'd probably take that deal from a remain perspective.

Bear in mind, that this is basically a CU arrangement, which means regulatory alignment, and have another referendum about fully rejoining the club a few years down the road. The regulatory alingment bit is what will gall the Brexiteers, as that means they can't undermine standards and move the UK as far away from the EU as they wish, and that should make rejoining in a few years time easier.

Of course that deal achieves BoZo's fantasy of the UK becoming a EU colony finally a reality (with regards to being a rule taker), and this will be one of the funny footnotes for historians to laugh about. Of course, the best bit is, no MEP representation, so Farage is all yours again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pebble said:

so lets play a game.

How many cabinet minsters are going to resign over the draft deal.

I am going to say 4.

My guess would be two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Of course that deal achieves BoZo's fantasy of the UK becoming a EU colony finally a reality (with regards to being a rule taker), and this will be one of the funny footnotes for historians to laugh about. Of course, the best bit is, no MEP representation, so Farage is all yours again.

I thought we'd exiled him to the States? Or was that just a dream I didn't want to wake up from?

 

ETA: 3-5 resignations

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Which Tyler said:

I thought we'd exiled him to the States? Or was that just a dream I didn't want to wake up from?

Nope, not really. He is like herpes, he might not show up for a while, but you never really get rid off him. But every once in a while.

With regards to resginations.

Tough to say. Either 2-3 or a complete break up of her cabinet.

I a not sure whether it's a good sign, that none of them has stormed out to huff and puff, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question; Esther McVae

 

ETA: How many resignations; or how may how quickly - before a no confidence motion goes through?

Would anyone "take one for the team" and launch a leadership challenge rather than no confidence?

 

ETA2: "My" MP (don't blame me though) has just put his head above the parapet and publicly asked for a vote of no confidence.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's 4 5 now: Before parliament has even opened for the day!

Dominic Raab (Brexit Secretary)

Esther McVey (Work and Pensions Secretary)

 

Shailesh Vara (Junior Northern Ireland minister)

Suella Braverman (junior minister at the Department for Exiting the EU)

+

Anne-Marie Trevelyan (PPS to the Education Ministers)

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×