UK Politics : Groundhog May

[Chaircat Meow]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Thornberry's tweet isn't exactly based on a sound logical reality either.

 

I mean I wasn't aware Labour had negotiated an alternative deal with the EU. So not really sure how May could technically speaking accept Labour's deal.

Let's assume she means, May accepts, that she has to go to Brussels and get a permanent customs union into the declaration for the future relationship. Of course, that won't be legally binding, as the part about the future relationship just isn't. That's not even talking baout the EU considering Labour's CU a better starting point for negotiations, and not the final destination. But anyway, let's assume May does as she is told and gets that bit into the non-binding future relationship bit, will Labour then support the WA? Note that one remains more or less untouched, and is legally binding.

You can just ignore that bit as it is obviously not going to happen. They just want to show they backed some Brexit option as a first choice before moving to the ref. 

[Werthead]

20 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Do you think Ref2.0 would / could include remain as an option? I would have thought the only referendum that respects the first one would have questions regarding the manner of Brexit, not re-litigating whether to Brexit. Of course if Ref2.0 rejects a no-deal outcome, then unless parliament can pass a Brexit deal Brexit gets put off indefinitely.

If there is an indefinite delay to Brexit because parliament is unable to pass a deal, then a party could campaign on ending the charade and canning the whole Brexit venture, and if it wins the general they have the mandate to put a final end to the process.

Ref 2.0 sounds like it will be a straight up Remain vs. Deal. No-Deal will be taken off the table in the vote on the 13th.

Quote

 

That was the exact tactic that Cameron tried in the 2016 referendum, and it didn't work. It's been tried several times, and doesn't work, largely because most Leavers don't actually have a specific problem with particular EU rules that could be tackled by reform. Most Leavers don't even understand what the EU rules even are. They have a more inchoate, general resentment of 'the EU' bred by years of myths and fictions.  

 

The implementation of the existing EU immigration rules was not advocated or tried by Cameron (as indeed many Leave voters are still unaware they exist). Mind you, that's not really reform, that's just hitting a button we could have hit ten years ago but no-one could be bothered.

Quote

The problem with this is the vast majority of EU immigrants have jobs.. pretty low paying jobs, and tend to come over via the offer of a job. Its unlikely to cut down the numbers much (although the idea of Brexit has seemingly cut numbers already)

It would (at least if implemented and followed up on competently) completely eliminate people coming over and "sponging off the system", which was a major concern of many Brexit voters.

Quote

Except Cameron strode over the EU suggesting he could get reform, only to be totally rebuked and came away with almost nothing, highlighting how unlikely reform, in a way the UK would prefer, was. Which totally played into the hands of the Leave campaign. 

Cameron's miscalculation was that Britain already gets tremendous, generous exemptions to many EU rules and stipulations, along with a generous rebate. With the arguable exception of France, no other country in the EU was having its cake and eating it as enthusiastically as Britain, and unsurprisingly the EU did not view Cameron's piteous "Please sir, can we have some more," very favourably. If Cameron wasn't a self-blinkered moron, he might have realised that.

Quote

Apparently the centre of British Politics is socially conservative and economically left wing. Sounds about right to me. Any party focusing on those values would probably do very well. Doesn't seem to be where TIG is though, so it will probably fall on its arse.

For a country that has embraced gay marriage, has no major problems with abortion and is pushing hard for more equality, but where people freak the shit out at the merest mention of their (by European standards) very modest taxes going up to pay for better roads or hospitals, I'd say it's more the reverse.

 

Quote

 

I wonder if Corbyn is among them. I keep hearing reports that he's a long-standing and well known Euro-skeptic. Has he advanced coherent reasoning for being such?

 

As far as can be worked out, Corbyn's belief is that the European Union has massively pushed forward the international neoliberal, ultra-capitalist agenda and has allowed the inequality between rich and poor to massively increase; its rules restrict state aid and nationalisation, and Britain would have problems implementing some of his policies (such as power and rail renationalisation) under current EU rules (although some think this is overstated); and there is too much power given to what he sees as pro-capitalist institutions such as the European Central Bank. He is broadly on board with their stance on workers' rights and human rights, though.

Corbyn doesn't seem to ardently hate the EU, but he certainly seems highly wary of it.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

ANyway, I think Ian Dunt has found out the big flaw in May's plan, and which I think is a very plausible scenario.

Quote

No-one mentioned, incidentally, the nightmare scenario: If MPs voted against no-deal and Article 50 extension. They are perfectly stupid and cowardly enough to do so. That terrible potentiality just sort of hung in the air, unspoken.

Linke as in @Nothing Has Changed post.

[The Anti-Targ]

40 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Ref 2.0 sounds like it will be a straight up Remain vs. Deal. No-Deal will be taken off the table in the vote on the 13th.

 

In that case I would say the question should just be about whether to go with the May plan and not mention Remain at all in the question. "May deal, Yes or No?" simple.

If the parliament rejects a no-deal Brexit, and the country rejects the May deal, then Brexit is indefinitely deferred by default and there's no need to vote for remain. Taking remain out of the referendum means the May plan is more likely to be defeated. A Brexiter who doesn't like the May deal may vote for the May deal, if the only other option is Remain. But a Brexiter who is faced with "Shall we go with the May deal? Y/N" is more likely to vote No if they hate the May deal, because Brexit remains the official endgame, in principle, and so said Brexiter might hold onto a belief that a better Brexit deal can be arranged.

And not having remain on the ballot means no one whining about how the will of the people expressed in 2016 is being cast aside. The will of the people is merely being clarified.

[Werthead]

32 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

In that case I would say the question should just be about whether to go with the May plan and not mention Remain at all in the question. "May deal, Yes or No?" simple.

If the parliament rejects a no-deal Brexit, and the country rejects the May deal, then Brexit is indefinitely deferred by default and there's no need to vote for remain. Taking remain out of the referendum means the May plan is more likely to be defeated. A Brexiter who doesn't like the May deal may vote for the May deal, if the only other option is Remain. But a Brexiter who is faced with "Shall we go with the May deal? Y/N" is more likely to vote No if they hate the May deal, because Brexit remains the official endgame, in principle, and so said Brexiter might hold onto a belief that a better Brexit deal can be arranged.

And not having remain on the ballot means no one whining about how the will of the people expressed in 2016 is being cast aside. The will of the people is merely being clarified.

That would merely perpetrate the current atmosphere of divisiveness, hatred and disunity indefinitely, which is in no-one's interest. It would also infuriate the EU (who would likely not allow it, and refuse to extend Article 50).

Remain or Deal, or Remain or No Deal, seem to be the only logical questions on the ballot.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That would merely perpetrate the current atmosphere of divisiveness, hatred and disunity indefinitely, which is in no-one's interest. It would also infuriate the EU (who would likely not allow it, and refuse to extend Article 50).

Remain or Deal, or Remain or No Deal, seem to be the only logical questions on the ballot.

the EU would only be pissy about it if they deliberately misinterpretted the meaning of the outcome. Which they might chose to do, but they'd be dicks if they did. Europe's interests are best achieved by remain, or as a close second an indefinite suspension of Brexit.

And it's only phase 1 of ending Brexit completely. The second phase is for a major party to compaign on ending the charade of an indefinite delay and cancel Brexit all together in the general election.

I don't know that remain on the ballot would end the divisiveness if remain won. The Brexiters would forever feel aggrieved at the fact that an option that had already been rejected was illegitimately brought back and he people railroaded into voting for it because the May plan was so awful. Then again, Brexiters will only be happy if any referrendum delivers a guaranteed Brexit within a relatively short space of time. So maybe trying to keeo them happy is pointless. But it still means that the divide in Britain has little chance of being healed any time soon, regardless of how Ref2.0 is worded.

It almost seems that perversely the least divisive outcome would be for the May deal to go ahead. It's a deal almost no one wants, but they don't want it a lot less than the alternative that they are most afraid of, be it remain or no-deal Brexit. At least the vast majority of people will be united in hating the compromise that had to be settled on.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

The implementation of the existing EU immigration rules was not advocated or tried by Cameron (as indeed many Leave voters are still unaware they exist). Mind you, that's not really reform, that's just hitting a button we could have hit ten years ago but no-one could be bothered.

It wasn't, but that doesn't really counter my point about why people voted to Leave. I strongly doubt that voters would have changed their views based on the implementation of a rule almost none of them knew even existed: largely because almost no voters correctly understood what support EU immigrants did or did not get anyway.

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

Corbyn doesn't seem to ardently hate the EU, but he certainly seems highly wary of it.

I think this is about right. May, on the other hand, tolerated it as a necessary evil.

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the parliament rejects a no-deal Brexit, and the country rejects the May deal, then Brexit is indefinitely deferred by default and there's no need to vote for remain.

This is incorrect, I'm afraid.

Brexit can only be deferred by agreement with the EU. Parliament's opinion on the matter only matters insofar as it restricts the UK government. So if Parliament rejects a no-deal Brexit, and the country rejects the May deal, then the default is that we get a no-deal Brexit anyway. The only ways to avoid that are to get the EU agree to extend A50 (which they will not do indefinitely), or withdraw A50 and remain in the EU, or extend it for a finite time and negotiate a new deal. 

 

[Mentat]

28 minutes ago, mormont said:

Brexit can only be deferred by agreement with the EU. Parliament's opinion on the matter only matters insofar as it restricts the UK government. So if Parliament rejects a no-deal Brexit, and the country rejects the May deal, then the default is that we get a no-deal Brexit anyway. The only ways to avoid that are to get the EU agree to extend A50 (which they will not do indefinitely), or withdraw A50 and remain in the EU, or extend it for a finite time and negotiate a new deal.

This is correct. By the time the 12th of March comes around I think it will be exceedingly clear that May's agreement with the EU is not really going to change in any meaningful way. This means that, if said deal gets voted down again, an extension is ultimately pointless (unless the UK asks for a 2 year extension with the intent to negotiate an entirely different deal from scratch). The EU will likely grant a 2-3 month extension anyway, but only to give itself some time to finalize its own no deal preparations. A third and very much in extremis vote of May's deal after the end of said pointless 2-3 month extension might have a better chance to pass than the one they hold before the 12th of March... but that's pretty much it. Otherwise it's no deal, whatever the preference of Parliament might be.

[ljkeane]

10 minutes ago, Mentat said:

Otherwise it's no deal, whatever the preference of Parliament might be.

Well apparently the UK can unilaterally revoke it's Article 50 declaration of intent to leave the EU. I suspect if it got to the stage of stumbling into no deal, regardless of what May has said, that's probably what would happen.

[Mentat]

5 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Well apparently the UK can unilaterally revoke it's Article 50 declaration of intent to leave the EU. I suspect if it got to the stage of stumbling into no deal, regardless of what May has said, that's probably what would happen.

Yes, you're right, but I disagree this is likely. I honestly think that given the choice between revoking article 50 (or even holding a People's vote over whether article 50 should be revoked) and leaving the EU without a deal, Parliament would choose the latter.

[ljkeane]

1 minute ago, Mentat said:

I honestly think that given the choice between revoking article 50 (or even holding a People's vote over whether article 50 should be revoked) and leaving the EU without a deal, Parliament would chose the latter.

It's possible, there are some hardline brexiteers in Parliament who I'm sure would like the idea. Being willing to stomach the economy being generally worse off after brexit is one thing, no deal which really hasn't been adequately prepared for is going to lead to some reasonably significant breakdowns in the supply chain to the UK though. The voting population is not going to react well to that and I'm dubious even many pro brexit MPs wouldn't balk at that. 

[mormont]

In more Labour anti-Semitism news, Chris Williamson MP issues an apology for doing something, in which he does it again.

 

Quote

"It pains me greatly, therefore, that anyone should believe it is my intention to minimise the cancerous and pernicious nature of anti-Semitism [...] Whilst it is true that there have been very few cases of anti-Semitism in the Labour party - something I believe is often forgotten when discussing this issue..."

 

[Loge]

3 hours ago, Mentat said:

This is correct. By the time the 12th of March comes around I think it will be exceedingly clear that May's agreement with the EU is not really going to change in any meaningful way. This means that, if said deal gets voted down again, an extension is ultimately pointless (unless the UK asks for a 2 year extension with the intent to negotiate an entirely different deal from scratch). The EU will likely grant a 2-3 month extension anyway, but only to give itself some time to finalize its own no deal preparations. A third and very much in extremis vote of May's deal after the end of said pointless 2-3 month extension might have a better chance to pass than the one they hold before the 12th of March... but that's pretty much it. Otherwise it's no deal, whatever the preference of Parliament might be.

The two year A 50 period can't be extended by more than 3 months without messing up the upcoming elections for the EU parliament. These elections are to take place in May. Is the UK to participate? It would have to if it isn't certain that it has left by the time the new parliament convenes.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It should. But it's not going to. As Ian Dunt pointed out twice in his articles. If the UK refuses to participate, then the real cliff edge approaches, when the new EU parliament assembles.

However, May's (the UK goverment's) position is, it would be difficult to explain to the voters that the UK participates in a European election after it voted to leave, and is in the process of leaving. As self-serving as that argument is, it is at least logically coherent.

While Brexit is as of now still avoidable (it can still be called off) it becomes a fixed reality after an EU election without the UK participating. So the window for remaining afterall is rapidly closing.

 

[Mentat]

2 hours ago, Loge said:

The two year A 50 period can't be extended by more than 3 months without messing up the upcoming elections for the EU parliament. These elections are to take place in May. Is the UK to participate? It would have to if it isn't certain that it has left by the time the new parliament convenes.

And yet the EU would probably still grant a longer extension if the UK asked for one (for a coherent reason). EU parliament issues would have to be ironed out, it's true, but I think the political will would be there, at least on the EU's side.

14 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

it would be difficult to explain to the voters that the UK participates in a European election after it voted to leave, and is in the process of leaving. As self-serving as that argument is, it is at least logically coherent.

Brexit has been horribly mismanaged, and it's going to make everyone in the UK worse off without delivering on any of the ludicrous promises that were made during the referendum campaign. At some point the voters are going to realise this (those that haven't already...), and when they do, the only explanation they will get is "It was that other guy's fault!" (that other guy being May, Cameron or anyone else who is conveniently out of politics at the time). It will be the equivalent of the little girl pointing at the corpse in Schindler's List.

[A wilding]

16 minutes ago, Mentat said:

Brexit has been horribly mismanaged, and it's going to make everyone in the UK worse off without delivering on any of the ludicrous promises that were made during the referendum campaign. At some point the voters are going to realise this (those that haven't already...), and when they do, the only explanation they will get is "It was that other guy's fault!" (that other guy being May, Cameron or anyone else who is conveniently out of politics at the time). It will be the equivalent of the little girl pointing at the corpse in Schindler's List.

And the really depressing aspect of it is that most voters who voted for Brexit will swallow that explanation whole, and happily vote in the next election for some liar who will tell them that their Brexit would have been rainbow unicorns all the way ...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

32 minutes ago, Mentat said:

And yet the EU would probably still grant a longer extension if the UK asked for one (for a coherent reason). EU parliament issues would have to be ironed out, it's true, but I think the political will would be there, at least on the EU's side.

Yes, but the solution is UK participation in the EU elections. That would already be a nuisance, as in the seats in the EU parliament have already been realocated under the assumption the UK having left by then. So that would be a different scenario then UK asking for a 3 month extension and not participating in the elections.

34 minutes ago, Mentat said:

Brexit has been horribly mismanaged, and it's going to make everyone in the UK worse off without delivering on any of the ludicrous promises that were made during the referendum campaign. At some point the voters are going to realise this (those that haven't already...), and when they do, the only explanation they will get is "It was that other guy's fault!" (that other guy being May, Cameron or anyone else who is conveniently out of politics at the time). It will be the equivalent of the little girl pointing at the corpse in Schindler's List.

True, but there was no happy ending in sight anyway. Anyway, none of that contradicts to what I said, that May'S reasoning for the UK not participating in the EU elections at least being logically coherent. Which is of course a very low bar to pass for a political discourse, but given how other political actors in the UK move around the Brexit discourse, it really deserved to be mentioned.

[Maltaran]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

In more Labour anti-Semitism news, Chris Williamson MP issues an apology for doing something, in which he does it again.

He has now been suspended

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47393626

[Chaircat Meow]

Well this Chris Williamson thing has really blown up.

Anyway, some musings from me.

As brought up by me, some commentators, such as Ian Dunt, think the EP elections form a natural barrier to any extension beyond July unless action is taken quickly, by the beginning of May. The window for Remain is therefore quite narrow in their view. I’m unsure how this plays into the unilateral power of revocation the ECJ ruled that the UK enjoys. If the UK revoked article 50 in late June, having secured an extension while failing to organise EP elections then the EP might be illegally constituted. Does the UK’s unilateral power of revocation depend on not doing anything to damage EU institutions in this way – if it does I don’t think the court said so. Anyway, Dunt was probably ruling out the prospect of unilateral revocation because of lack of domestic support and so didn’t factor it into his argument. However, it might still be possible to Remain even if we fail to organise EP elections following a short extension but this scenario would depend on Remain through a panic-induced revocation rather than a referendum.

Onto Rees-Mogg. There are gurglings about a softening of the ERG’s position. They’ve even said they’d be fine if the Treaty is not reopened, the backstop stays and Cox only comes back with a codicil. The Financial Times suggested Mogg might be laying the ground for a climbdown. I have to say I don’t think so. This may be my biases, as I want to Remain, so logically I need the ERG to keep blocking the deal but I think the odds are most of the ERG not backing down and not Mogg (their leader).

In terms of personality this is someone who has never held government office, so never needed to make compromises or u-turns and never had to accept responsibility. He’s also fine with portraying himself as a throwback, and is a stickler for points of constitutional principle. I can see him voting in such a way to bring about Remain on the grounds he couldn’t sacrifice his principles to support May’s deal. He’ll blame everyone else for remaining.

Regarding his current demands it also looks very unlikely the EU will meet them; he’s still demanding any reworking sets a time limit to the backstop, something I think there is a very small chance of being agreed.

Regarding the People’s Vote what about the following problem. Let’s assume that Labour backs a backbench amendment for a second referendum, and it passes by about ten votes, a hidden column of Tory remainers having broken cover and the labour brexiteers like Flint and De Piero having been cowed.  This would still mean the referendum would be backed by about 20-30 mps from the governing party with the remainder all being opposition mps. In these circumstances how would the rest of the legislation actually get through? Surely it is totally impossible to steer the referendum bill through with the government not making time for it and being opposed. And if somehow this was managed surely Jeremy Corbyn, or Keir Starmer, or whoever was overseeing the bill would be de facto prime minister? Would this not just precipitate a general election, as the government would be in office but the opposition in power.

Question: can anyone see the DUP climbing down, and what exactly are their preferences. Presumably they would actually prefer a soft-Norway style Brexit but just can't say so because of their alliance with the Tory right? And if remaining would not damage or at least not advance the power of Corbyn would they prefer to remain rather than have May's deal?

[Werthead]

 

Quote

 

Regarding the People’s Vote what about the following problem. Let’s assume that Labour backs a backbench amendment for a second referendum, and it passes by about ten votes, a hidden column of Tory remainers having broken cover and the labour brexiteers like Flint and De Piero having been cowed.  This would still mean the referendum would be backed by about 20-30 mps from the governing party with the remainder all being opposition mps. In these circumstances how would the rest of the legislation actually get through? Surely it is totally impossible to steer the referendum bill through with the government not making time for it and being opposed. And if somehow this was managed surely Jeremy Corbyn, or Keir Starmer, or whoever was overseeing the bill would be de facto prime minister? Would this not just precipitate a general election, as the government would be in office but the opposition in power.

 

I believe the administration of the vote would be, as it was in 2016, under the purview of the Electoral Commission, a neutral body set up to exactly avoid this problem. The Commission would consult with all sides involved to formulate the question and format of the referendum.