UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

Here's why we're all screwed:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/04/most-tory-members-would-choose-no-deal-over-may-brexit-plan

The fact is that the only people any politician in the Tory party really cares about are these people, because these people will decide who gets to lead the party. Yet if they get their way, we're all screwed.

And that, in a nutshell, is how you distinguish a politician from a statesman or woman.  

[Nevarfeather]

not at all surprised to learn half of Tory members are insane sadomasochists really

joking aside it's a real shame the polling doesn't breakdown those that don't understand no-deal and those that do. 

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, Pebble said:

 

Also why is it I am not surprised dispute your continued claimed support of Remain that anything put forward by remain sided people as "Not worthwhile"  "unhelpful"  or "misses the point"  You appear to be about as much in favour of Remain as Jeremy Corbyn was during the 1st ref. 

Its not that I don't think your concerns are not valid as I'm just as disturbed as you by the level of foreign interference( although I don't really believe there is much evidence of Russian interference having a real effect), its that I don't see how it helps the discussion until anything has been proven. 

My bone of contention in all of this is that Remain has done a very poor job of even trying to understand why Leave voters voted the way they did , falling back on calling people racist and ignorant and staying well within their comfortable bubble. My hope is to be able to engage leave voters on the issues that actually count to them, and in language that they will listen to. I don't see how claiming the whole thing was the result of a Russian plot does anything to help things.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Nothing new, but that really feels like watching in train wreck in slow motion. Namely, this is how the UK is gonna crash out.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Seriously? If your definition of a 'melting pot' is going to include bringing together of different tribes then you are playing with the loosest possible interpretation of 'melting pot'. By your own definition there isn't a country on the planet that isn't in some ways a melting pot

 

That is certainly a strong argument. No nation exists, grows or changes in isolation, and never has done.

Quote

rendering the term utterly meaningless.

Rendering the term "inconvenient" for those ignorant of history, perhaps.

Quote

Why I think it's important to nail this down is that 'melting pot' is really a propaganda term used by Remain voters to create a false sense of history of the UK. It is used to tell Leave voters that they themselves are really just immigrants, that they have no more right to their sense of location than anyone. The problem is that this is a lie worthy of being put onto the side of a bus, but people are happy to parrot it out straight faced. Britain is absolutely not a 'nation of immigrants' or a 'melting pot'. The numbers of people from other cultures were absolutely tiny coming into this country for almost 2000 years, even the Anglo Saxons people like to refer to were more than likely coming in much smaller numbers than suggested, same with the Normans ( but again I think that trying to use actual bloody invasion to sell immigration is a dumb strategy) 

There are some excellent books available on the history, politics and sociology of the United Kingdom and the British Empire. I suggest you familiarise yourself with them, because your constant sidestepping of history and factual reality whenever it inconveniences your argument is getting a little tiresome.

Quote

Either way the situation is a you have a bunch of liberal city dwellers who have very little attachment to place, telling people who greatly value their sense of community, shared values and nationhood, that they have no real right to those things, or that they have no value. It's basically saying 'be more like us.. we are global', but that misses the point. 

This is empty sloganeering. "Liberal city dwellers" do have a strong sense of attachment to place, history, patriotism etc and saying that don't is a ridiculous generalisation, especially since a "liberal city dweller" is far more likely to be better-qualified and better-educated than not. Worse, it doubles down on the romantic myth that only people who live in the country with a strong attachment to the earth or something are "real" salt-of-the-earth people and everyone who lives in the city is an amoral, soulless automaton who doesn't appreciate what "life is really like" or somesuch utter nonsense.

Quote

A far stronger strategy would be to show how many immigrants have managed to assimilate into British society, demonstrate that those who are newly arrived are willing to take on elements of British culture and will fit in. 

In the case of immigrants from the EU, this is already proven, because they're not exactly coming from cultures massively different to our own beyond language. One of the constantly bemusing refrains from the Brexit-supporting crowd is their fear over the values of people from the Middle East and Africa, often from Muslim countries, coming into the UK and trying to change our way of life (again with questionable evidence, especially versus the tendency of such groups and their offspring to secularisation) or blow things up, but Brexit has nothing to do with that issue whatsoever and will likely more it more prominent (because non-EU immigration is already at a high and will increase after Brexit to replace those workers no longer willing to travel from the EU).

Quote

A second ref does nothing but confirm the fears of Leave voters that their votes really don't count and that the 'establishment' is doing everything it can to prevent democracy. 

 The time for convincing people about the benefits of the EU is over. We missed the boat by 2 years. 

Democracy is an ongoing, constant and daily process. It is not something that happens once ever 5 years (or 41 years) and everyone then forgets about it. If people change their minds after 6 months or 3 years, they are absolutely correct in demanding that this change of opinion is considered and taken into account. Politicians change their minds every day about major issues, whether as a matter of conscience or a matter of new facts coming to light (or a matter of a quick backhander or a quid pro quo), and might vote on the same issue two completely different ways in two different months.

If the vote for Leave had been overwhelming, a much stronger argument could be made against a second referendum. If the conditions of leaving were also broadly in line with what was argued at the time of the referendum (of leaving in good order with a strong deal with the EU), a strong argument could also be made against a second referendum. However, as Leave's margin of victory was extremely marginal, as the Leave campaign themselves said that "the argument isn't over at 52%", and as the conditions of leaving now look set to be very different to 2016, the arguments for a second referendum are now all extremely strong, and if May's deal fails to command support in Westminster this week (as seems likely), I think will become very difficult to resist. The only way it won't happen at that point is if no-one is willing cancel Article 50 and we crash out due to bureaucratic paralysis.

If a second referendum is held on the basis of No Deal versus Remain and No Deal wins, fine, then that should be enacted, after a brief pause to give those unwilling to dive headlong over the cliff time to leave the country, for the checkpoints to be set up in Northern Ireland and for the NHS to brace itself for the return of hundreds of thousands of elderly British expats from Spain (Spain has not yet guaranteed their right to remain, although Italy has and Germany and France are apparently about to).

Quote

My bone of contention in all of this is that Remain has done a very poor job of even trying to understand why Leave voters voted the way they did , falling back on calling people racist and ignorant and staying well within their comfortable bubble. My hope is to be able to engage leave voters on the issues that actually count to them, and in language that they will listen to.

Remainers have done an excellent job of trying to understand why Leave voters voted the way they did. For two and a half years Leave voters, campaigners and planners (many of whom have wanted to leave for 20 or even 40 years) have had nothing but chances to put forward solid and workable proposals and plans on how a post-Brexit Britain can function, and have singularly failed to do so beyond trying to sell pipe dreams and unicorns, and talking about supranational organisations like the EU and WTO doing whatever we want them to do because we say so, and ignoring those selfsame organisations when they simply outline their rules and charters explaining why that can't work.

For the most part, Remainers understand why people voted for Brexit, because it was an emotional and simplistic response to a lack of understanding of massively complex, international relationships, and the reactions of Brexiters since 2016 shows that this continues to be the case. OTOH, Remainers have broadly accepted certain things that Brexiters wanted as maxims - controlling immigration through the EU's existing (but inactive) mechanisms, putting a halt on the redundant plans to create an EU army (which would be duplicating NATO capability at enormous cost), stopping Turkey joining the EU in the short term (although that seems to have gone out the window anyway) and preventing the creation of a single EU superstate or forcing more countries to adopt the Euro in the wake of the financial crisis and Greece's problems. If Brexit is reversed, it should not be taken to mean that the result would then be business as usual in the EU afterwards.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Leave's margin wasn't "extremely marginal." 52-48% is a narrow margin (1.27 million votes), but it's a clear one. In percentage terms it was only a shade closer than Obama's 2012 re-election (51-47%). 

Having a referendum on May's Deal versus No Deal is fine. Having Remain on the ballot too is an affront to democracy (and ties in with the EU's historical fondness for having referendums until it gets the result it wants).

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I agree that there is a problem with holding referendums until you get the result you want. 

However, it's also a problem if you can never hold another referendum. General elections to the house of commons are held every five years if I understand correctly. As late as 2017 the prime minister called a new general election precisely because she wasn't happy with the result of the last one. This was well within her right to do and hardly an affront to democracy, even though the new results didn't exactly play out the way she wanted.

The problem with an issue like EU membership is that it's such a huge deal that you can't change your mind all the time. Going in and out every five years would probably kill the economy even worse than a no deal scenario. So which would be the proper way of handling this kind of question? New referendum now? Deliver Brexit and hold another referendum in five years of when we know how it went? Keep the 2016 results and never hold another referendum? 

Calling any one of the options an affront to democracy while pushing for another seems pretty dishonest to me, because they all have problems, to put it mildly.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Oh, I have no problems with another referendum being held, say, in 2036 or so, should EU membership be an issue then (bearing in mind that forty-one years elapsed after the 1975 referendum, which would mean 2057). It's just that referenda, under the Westminster System, really ought to be for "once in a generation" systematic changes, not revisited less than three years later because the losing side wants "best of two out of three".

(I would also be OK with another referendum if voters elect a Government with a Manifesto promise to call another referendum. Given the performance of the Liberal Democrats in 2017, that isn't a winner).

[mormont]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Having Remain on the ballot too is an affront to democracy

Yes.  Voting certainly is an affront to democracy. It's not democratic at all.

What's entertaining about this is the implicit assumption that a second referendum is likely to challenge the result of the first. Doesn't really fit with your line above about how the outcome wasn't that marginal, but hey. If I lived in another country and the entire topic of Brexit was nothing more than an intellectual exercise to me, maybe I would also be pontificating about points of principle instead of thinking abougt dealing with actual consequences.

[Heartofice]

Let’s be honest , a second referendum is nothing more than a move to cancel out the result of the first one.  Nobody campaigning for a second referendum is even very good at hiding this fact. I was there at the recent march demanding the second vote and it was entirely filled with remain voters with ‘bollocks to brexit’ badges. ( large amounts of elderly white people incidentally) 

Its biggest advocate is Lord Adonis who is remains version of Farage. He’s openly hostile to Brexit in any form.

The idea that it is anything other than a second chance to get the decision right is laughable and really people should just be honest about it. 

Any vote, were it to be democratic would be on the form of Brexit, not whether Brexit should happen ( as that decision has already been made) So remain couldn’t be included on the ballot. Instead the hope is to split the leave vote over two options. 

[mormont]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The idea that it is anything other than a second chance to get the decision right is laughable and really people should just be honest about it. 

People are.

[polishgenius]

Yeah, 'nobody campaigning for remain is very good at hiding this fact'... nobody campaigning for remain is trying to hide this fact. That is the entire point.


The idea that including a vote to remain now would be undemocratic is fucking laughable and fundamentaly misunderstands what a democracy is.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

But, Brexit means Brexit.

[williamjm]

8 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Calling any one of the options an affront to democracy while pushing for another seems pretty dishonest to me, because they all have problems, to put it mildly.

I think a no-deal Brexit happening in slightly less than 3 months would be at least as much an affront to democracy, because there is no democratic mandate for doing that, since it goes against both the promises made by the leave campaigns during the referendum campaign, and the manifesto on which Theresa May "won" the last election.

If Theresa May could get her party and her coalition allies to unite behind her deal, then I think she would have a democratic mandate to implement it, but that's looking increasingly unlikely.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I think we definitely need remain included on any ballot.

The prep for Brexit has been a disaster, the weakened pound helping kill an already beleaguered high street.

God knows what Brexit itself will bring, especially with no deal.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

The idea that including a vote to remain now would be undemocratic is fucking laughable and fundamentaly misunderstands what a democracy is.

What about the 3rd vote? and the 4th.. 5th.. 6th... 

[Isis]

When I think about how much time (and obviously time is money in this situation) has been spent by public servants working 'towards' Brexit since June 2016 it makes me feel sick on a daily basis. The amount of public money that has gone down the toilet already - think of what could have been done with that money for the NHS generally, for mental health services especially (which are totally inadequate and getting worse all the time), for education, for preventing homeless people from dying on the streets... And how much actual work are the UK government and public servants* pushing aside so that they can work on this nonsense?

*If you know any civil servants ask them.

[Werthead]

13 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Leave's margin wasn't "extremely marginal." 52-48% is a narrow margin (1.27 million votes), but it's a clear one. In percentage terms it was only a shade closer than Obama's 2012 re-election (51-47%). 

Having a referendum on May's Deal versus No Deal is fine. Having Remain on the ballot too is an affront to democracy (and ties in with the EU's historical fondness for having referendums until it gets the result it wants).

As noted previously, the 2016 referendum did not include an option to "leave the EU without a deal", because everyone involved knew that would be shot down in flames, so all the talk and clarifications were that Leave meant leaving with an agreement in place with the EU, or us taking up a pre-existing format like a Norway or Canada-style deal. The 2016 referendum also did not ask if the breakup of the United Kingdom was the price worth paying for Brexit, and that seems inevitable in the event of a No Deal scenario.

The fact that these options are seemingly now vacating the premises means that delivering on the results of the 2016 referendum are becoming unachievable. A referendum on the real choice - Remain or No Deal - is therefore not an "affront to democracy" but a reaffirmation of democracy. If Leave with No Deal wins, especially with an increased majority, fine, at least the electorate has made that decision and everyone can go down on the ship together.

 

Quote

 

What about the 3rd vote? and the 4th.. 5th.. 6th... 

So why did we have a vote in 2016 after we already had a vote in 1975? Why have a vote at all after we repeatedly elected governments in every election from 1979 to 2010 whose campaigns included promises to remain within the EU?

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

As noted previously, the 2016 referendum did not include an option to "leave the EU without a deal", because everyone involved knew that would be shot down in flames, so all the talk and clarifications were that Leave meant leaving with an agreement in place with the EU, or us taking up a pre-existing format like a Norway or Canada-style deal. The 2016 referendum also did not ask if the breakup of the United Kingdom was the price worth paying for Brexit, and that seems inevitable in the event of a No Deal scenario.

The vote was to leave the EU. Leaving without a deal is actually the closest thing to achieving that in many ways. I always find it confusing that anyone would suggest leavers didn't vote to leave without a deal.. thats pretty much exactly what they voted for. A Norway Deal, or Chequers deal is much closer to Remaining that leaving. 
 

Quote

So why did we have a vote in 2016 after we already had a vote in 1975? 

If there is a second referendum and it chooses to Remain, you'd be ok with another one 2 years later to check that nobody had changed their mind? And then another 2 years later... for the rest of eternity. 

 

Quote

Why have a vote at all after we repeatedly elected governments in every election from 1979 to 2010 whose campaigns included promises to remain within the EU?

Not sure I get this comment...do you seriously believe anyone voted in general elections during those time periods in order to stay in the EU? Not because of other political motivations?

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I always find it confusing that anyone would suggest leavers didn't vote to leave without a deal.. thats pretty much exactly what they voted for.

Polling those voters suggests that they do not agree.

See: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-53-of-british-public-want-second-eu-referendum-11584278

Also, this line about 'when do we stop?' is weak sauce. The situation has changed significantly since 2016. If it were to change significantly again, one could hold another referendum. But more importantly, refusing to hold a referendum when public opinion is in favour of holding one cannot be justified on such a weak basis.