Jump to content
A Horse Named Stranger

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Draconian sentences for carrying knives

Is there any evidence this approach would have any effect? 

As for stop and search... 

https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/SS_and_crime_report.pdf

ETA - on another topic, guess what? 

https://www.ft.com/content/743b112e-136d-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Quote

The British government has accepted that a company awarded a contract to provide ferry services in the event of a no-deal Brexit will be unable to deliver them before late April, several weeks after the UK is due to leave the EU.

 

Edited by mormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ants said:

Because the rules around Brexit impact them to, plus the secondary impacts if they have properties/investments in the UK, plus they're UK citizens?

I do wish the same argument about impacts could have been applied to EU citizens in the UK more openly and honestly. It's seems really shameful to me that there is a huge population that are taxed without representation and to whom brexit impacts heavily but who are regarded as 'bargaining chips' by the british government. Awful :-( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament kicks the government again:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46805269

Quote

 

Rebel Tory MPs have joined forces with Labour to inflict a fresh blow on Theresa May's government in a Commons Brexit vote.

It means the government will have to come up with fresh plans within three days if Mrs May's EU withdrawal deal is rejected by MPs next week.

It could also open the door to alternatives, such as a referendum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very entertaining day in Parliament today, the anger towards Bercow was palpable
So now May must present a Plan B within 3 days of the meaningful vote. Anyone think that's remotely possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

Very entertaining day in Parliament today, the anger towards Bercow was palpable
So now May must present a Plan B within 3 days of the meaningful vote. Anyone think that's remotely possible?

I don't really know how there could even BE a plan B. The EU aren't considering it and its been obvious for ages that her deal won't be accepted by anyone here. 

Share this post


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

Parliament kicks the government again:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46805269

 

I am somewhat still confused what the MPs have actually achieved.

Assuming May's deal fails to pass parliament:

The goverment has to avoid a no-deal scenario (which is the default if May's deal gets shot down).

But ok, let's assume this means a second referendum. If leave wins again, then what?

May's deal deal again? It's not like the deal improves. Norway? That was rejected by, well, Norway.

I somehow have problems getting my head around the endgame there. Yes, a remain win solves that. However if leave wins I have no idea what the next step is supposed to be.

 

 

Share this post


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

I am somewhat still confused what the MPs have actually achieved.

Assuming May's deal fails to pass parliament:

The goverment has to avoid a no-deal scenario (which is the default if May's deal gets shot down).

But ok, let's assume this means a second referendum. If leave wins again, then what?

May's deal deal again? It's not like the deal improves. Norway? That was rejected by, well, Norway.

I somehow have problems getting my head around the endgame there. Yes, a remain win solves that. However if leave wins I have no idea what the next step is supposed to be.

 

 

Presumably it would be to leave according to whichever leave option had been put on the ballot paper, so either no-deal or May's deal. if you want a 2nd referendum in order to remain, logically you have to appreciate that you might get the opposite of what you want. 

The other remainer plan, the Ken Clarke plan (although he didn't say this in as many words) is just to revoke article 50 on the grounds the government has failed, at present, to come up with a workable Brexit plan, and insist that we'll hand our notice in again when we decide what we actually want. As that'll never be decided article 50 will never be invoked again and you sort of just hope people will forget about the referendum and that the Tory party membership, which elects the next leader, just goes away ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I am somewhat still confused what the MPs have actually achieved.

Assuming May's deal fails to pass parliament:

The goverment has to avoid a no-deal scenario (which is the default if May's deal gets shot down).

But ok, let's assume this means a second referendum. If leave wins again, then what?

May's deal deal again? It's not like the deal improves. Norway? That was rejected by, well, Norway.

I somehow have problems getting my head around the endgame there. Yes, a remain win solves that. However if leave wins I have no idea what the next step is supposed to be.

Apparently May will make a speech after the vote, which may be to reveal whatever Plan B is. This may be:

  1. Stringing things out for a few weeks and then resubmit the plan (maybe with a few squeaky amendments) on the basis it will be her deal or No-Deal. This was certainly her plan until this amendment passed, which now kind of messes that up (unless the plan presented to Parliament on Day 3 is to blatantly say they'll wait a few weeks and then try again). 
  2. Resign as Tory leader and let someone else have a shot. This does not seem very likely after she weathered the no confidence motion a few weeks ago and most of the alternative choices are happy with No Deal.
  3. Call a general election, on the grounds a general election campaign can be organised and fought in the time before Brexit with a few weeks to spare (although barely) and a referendum cannot. That either gives her a greater mandate to force through her view of Brexit, on the grounds that the public have voted for it, or it dumps the whole shitstorm in Corbyn's lap and he can get on with it, which might sound nice but I suspect May isn't really keen on either.
  4. Call a delay to Article 50 and then try to string out fresh negotiations or call a second referendum for later in the year.

What would have previously been Option 5 - say fuck this shit and just go for No Deal - is off the table thanks to Parliament's previous manoeuvring. I'd say that Option 4 is also highly improbable: May has said repeatedly we will be leaving on that date and I don't think she can renege on that and stay in office, but at the moment fuck knows.

Share this post


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

Apparently May will make a speech after the vote, which may be to reveal whatever Plan B is. This may be:

  1. Stringing things out for a few weeks and then resubmit the plan (maybe with a few squeaky amendments) on the basis it will be her deal or No-Deal. This was certainly her plan until this amendment passed, which now kind of messes that up (unless the plan presented to Parliament on Day 3 is to blatantly say they'll wait a few weeks and then try again).  
  2. Resign as Tory leader and let someone else have a shot. This does not seem very likely after she weathered the no confidence motion a few weeks ago and most of the alternative choices are happy with No Deal.
  3. Call a general election, on the grounds a general election campaign can be organised and fought in the time before Brexit with a few weeks to spare (although barely) and a referendum cannot. That either gives her a greater mandate to force through her view of Brexit, on the grounds that the public have voted for it, or it dumps the whole shitstorm in Corbyn's lap and he can get on with it, which might sound nice but I suspect May isn't really keen on either.
  4. Call a delay to Article 50 and then try to string out fresh negotiations or call a second referendum for later in the year.

What would have previously been Option 5 - say fuck this shit and just go for No Deal - is off the table thanks to Parliament's previous manoeuvring. I'd say that Option 4 is also highly improbable: May has said repeatedly we will be leaving on that date and I don't think she can renege on that and stay in office, but at the moment fuck knows.

Option 1 looks like it vioaltes the amdnement, if not exactly by the wording, but certainly in spirit. (ok, that sentence was awkward, bu you know what I mean).

Option 2. does not really address the question, what parliament has achieved, will do.

Option 3. Neither time, nor do I see that a solution with Labour's absense of a coherent policy. Yes, I know, Corbyn will negotiate a new deal within a forthnight, that takes off the elvel playing field bits out (no, not really, but that's apparently his latest gig). And remember Corbyn is for the Tories the anti-Christ.

Option 4. New negotiations are off the table, second referendum is not really what she wants to do. But that seems to be the least implausible solution.

However, what to do if the plebs vote again to hit the big red button they are not supposed to touch. That's what I am really curious about, if Leave prevails again. The deal nobody likes (and which was voted down by parliament), or the no-deal economic seppuku, parliament (thought to) have taken off the table.

And you have to take that outome somehow into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take on a second referendum:

We have two different Leave options - May's deal and no deal. All others are impossible unicorns, be they blue or red ones. Lies, if you will.

Therefore there should be 3 options on the ballot for a second referendum - May's deal, No deal and Remain . Of course the brexiters will cry foul, saying it's just a way to split the Brexit vote and ensure a Remain win, but is it really that unfair? After all you could equally easily claim that the 2016 vote was unfairly set up in Brexit's favour, because the Brexit option contained any possible and impossible deal you could ever think of. It was like a presidential election where you could only choose to vote either for the sitting president or for "some other person". 

To lessen the legitimacy of any accusations of foul play in a 3 option vote, you could have a second round like they do in many presidential elections around the world. The two top options would go to the final round, so that you won't have to worry about wasting your vote in the first run. Then we'd have either No deal vs Remain, May's deal vs Remain, or No deal vs May's deal. 

In addition to being more fair, this type of referendum would also have the benefit of getting a result that actually means something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Here's my take on a second referendum:

We have two different Leave options - May's deal and no deal. All others are impossible unicorns, be they blue or red ones. Lies, if you will.

Therefore there should be 3 options on the ballot for a second referendum - May's deal, No deal and Remain . Of course the brexiters will cry foul, saying it's just a way to split the Brexit vote and ensure a Remain win, but is it really that unfair? After all you could equally easily claim that the 2016 vote was unfairly set up in Brexit's favour, because the Brexit option contained any possible and impossible deal you could ever think of. It was like a presidential election where you could only choose to vote either for the sitting president or for "some other person". 

To lessen the legitimacy of any accusations of foul play in a 3 option vote, you could have a second round like they do in many presidential elections around the world. The two top options would go to the final round, so that you won't have to worry about wasting your vote in the first run. Then we'd have either No deal vs Remain, May's deal vs Remain, or No deal vs May's deal. 

In addition to being more fair, this type of referendum would also have the benefit of getting a result that actually means something. 

Its easy, just have a referendum with two questions.  In the first one is Leave or Remain.  The second question is "if we leave do we" May's deal, no deal.  Keeps it quite simple, everyone who votes leave knows that its one of those two options, but everyone gets their say on what is the structure if Leave does win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ants said:

Its easy, just have a referendum with two questions.  In the first one is Leave or Remain.  The second question is "if we leave do we" May's deal, no deal.  Keeps it quite simple, everyone who votes leave knows that its one of those two options, but everyone gets their say on what is the structure if Leave does win. 

As I said - that's unfair, because it lumps together multiple options that aren't remotely similar.

It'd be like first having a general election "for or against Tories" and then, if the Tories lose, an election "Labour or UKIP". You'd effectively eliminate the Tories' chances to win even if they were the most popular party. 

Every kind of future relationship with the EU - should it be May's deal, Norway, Canada, No deal or something else - should compete on its own terms. Remain is just one of them. It makes no sense to first pit Remain against all the others combined, and then vote between the remaining options. Chances are quite high that whatever deal wins such a vote will be less popular than Remain would have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

As I said - that's unfair, because it lumps together multiple options that aren't remotely similar.

It'd be like first having a general election "for or against Tories" and then, if the Tories lose, an election "Labour or UKIP". You'd effectively eliminate the Tories' chances to win even if they were the most popular party. 

Every kind of future relationship with the EU - should it be May's deal, Norway, Canada, No deal or something else - should compete on its own terms. Remain is just one of them. It makes no sense to first pit Remain against all the others combined, and then vote between the remaining options. Chances are quite high that whatever deal wins such a vote will be less popular than Remain would have been. 

No. If leave gets 51% then the decision is which leave we go for. It's totally fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on a referendum question I think the Irish method of a Citizens Assembly is a good idea, take a representative group of citizens, test the scenarios, test the law, test the consequences - if this had happened in 2016 imagine the different outcome to this whole mess

this was a good breakdown of how they work

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/05/a-jury-of-peers/

i think it's a little silly to debate the possible questions or for MPs to choose, we need to create a structured system with expert advice and representative citizens to arrive at a method to hold the referendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

As I said - that's unfair, because it lumps together multiple options that aren't remotely similar.

It'd be like first having a general election "for or against Tories" and then, if the Tories lose, an election "Labour or UKIP". You'd effectively eliminate the Tories' chances to win even if they were the most popular party. 

Every kind of future relationship with the EU - should it be May's deal, Norway, Canada, No deal or something else - should compete on its own terms. Remain is just one of them. It makes no sense to first pit Remain against all the others combined, and then vote between the remaining options. Chances are quite high that whatever deal wins such a vote will be less popular than Remain would have been. 

I get what you’re saying, but the first referendum set the precedent that leaving and remaining are two equally valid and opposing options. It’s hard to see how Remain wouldn’t storm it if the leave vote was split. If you went further with your logic, we could split the Remain vote as well; Remain but attempt more negotiation as to our membership, or Remain as before. Or Remain and keep red passports, or Remain but change them to blue. These are distinct ideas but you can’t keep adding addendums. 

I like the two part question option, as it gives Remainers the opportunity to have some say even if Leave still wins; I’d rather stay, but if we have to leave, I’d rather it was on May’s deal than no deal.

It'd be bizarre if Leave and then No Deal Leave won though ... I guess the government then just let the shit hit the fan and sit back and say “all this shit? Hitting the fan? We’ve got a mandate for all that...”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Therefore there should be 3 options on the ballot for a second referendum

Under no circumstances.

A 3 question referendum would be a potential disaster. What if there's a plurality, but not a majority, for Remain? Or for either other option, for that matter. We'd be further in the mud. A plurality doesn't have enough weight to carry the day, only a majority.

A 2 question referendum is not an ideal option either, IMO: I know everything seems really very clear when you set it out in your own head, but it is not always so clear for everyone else. Two questions lead to more confusion than one, particularly in an if-then series of questions as it would be here.

Share this post


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

on a referendum question I think the Irish method of a Citizens Assembly is a good idea, take a representative group of citizens, test the scenarios, test the law, test the consequences - if this had happened in 2016 imagine the different outcome to this whole mess

this was a good breakdown of how they work

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/05/a-jury-of-peers/

i think it's a little silly to debate the possible questions or for MPs to choose, we need to create a structured system with expert advice and representative citizens to arrive at a method to hold the referendum

I actually like this idea. Anything that removes the distance between MPs and the populace is good. 

The potential issues with it I think is that what it does is pass off responsibility from MPs to this Assembly. MPs would probably find it quite difficult to go against the findings of these things and justify their choice. Ideally you are electing experts to government to make these decisions for you, rather than them delegating responsibility off to someone else.

I would say the same thing about Referendums, they are normally a pretty bad way to conduct politics. 

The way I tend to view it is that the general populace should be using their voice to inform the government of problems they face, and it is up to the government to find the solution. The Brexit vote was asking us all to vote on a solution to some vague problems. Of course it was stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

As I said - that's unfair, because it lumps together multiple options that aren't remotely similar.

It'd be like first having a general election "for or against Tories" and then, if the Tories lose, an election "Labour or UKIP". You'd effectively eliminate the Tories' chances to win even if they were the most popular party. 

Every kind of future relationship with the EU - should it be May's deal, Norway, Canada, No deal or something else - should compete on its own terms. Remain is just one of them. It makes no sense to first pit Remain against all the others combined, and then vote between the remaining options. Chances are quite high that whatever deal wins such a vote will be less popular than Remain would have been. 

I get what you're saying, but there is no easy option except preferential voting, which your electorate doesn't understand one whit (hence why you voted it down in the referendum).  Out of the two options that people would understand, this or a 3 way question both have their issues. But I do think its the fairest approach (excluding preferential voting).  

But I think out of (a) 1 vote with 3 options versus (b) 2 votes with 2 options, then (b) is fairer.  The first part of (b) is the same question as the previous referendum, with a clear statement that if people vote the same way one of two options must be chosen for the system.  It is saying everyone has a vote on if the UK is in or out, and everyone has a vote on the system if you're out.  No diluting of saying those who want to vote remain can't get a say on the system if you leave.  Additionally, the two options that I'm suggesting if the UK leave's are the Brexiter's two preferred options.  So if Leave wins the main vote, they get their choice.  No Norway/Canada options.  So as long as they win Vote 1, they will get something they want. *

You're comparison is not really apt.  A better comparison would be if vote 1 was "left or right", and then vote 2 was parties within each sphere.  

* Of course, the fact that many don't want either No Brexit or May's deal is just because they're still in la la land and think that mythical unicorn brexit is still possible.  

 

On a separate note, I don't think options should appear if they're not fleshed out.  By now, there is lots of information available on the current system, May's deal and a no-deal brexit. Adding in other options that might require further negotiation would just muddy the waters.  Let's assume May has negotiated roughly the best deal possible, and keep that as the clear middle ground option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting feedback! I can definitely buy DaveSumm's argument about splitting the Remain vote as well. No matter how you set it up, it will give an advantage to either side. 

While I will readily admit that my solution isn't perfect, I do stand by the opinion that the 2016 vote was completely unfair in that it lumped a bunch of options together that were mutually incompatible. Some saw a Hard Brexit but with no idea what that meant with regards to e.g. Northern Ireland, some envisioned blue unicorns, others saw red unicorns. Many probably just wanted to get rid of all the Muslims, no matter how little sense that made. Certainly very few people saw, much less voted for, a Brexit resembling anything like May's deal. Yet this is what the UK is likely ending up with - or worse. 

(To be clear, I'm not British but from Sweden. I'm mostly in here to forget about our own incompetent, scheming politicians that have so far failed to form a government 4 months and counting after the election.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the current discussion, I'm wondering what you guys would think about a two stage election?  So, in other words, have three options in the first stage (1 remain and 2 leave), but if no option gets 50+1%, then a second election is triggered between the top two options.  This way, even if the first stage is biased towards remain by splitting the leave vote, as long as there's not a majority voting remain, the leavers will get a second chance in which there's only two clear options.

Share this post


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

×