Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

UK Politics: The Malice in the Chalice held by the Pfeffel with the Piffle is the Brexit that is true.

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Of course as with the first 3 presentations of the May deal it could be the hard Brexiters that block it.

It'll be a combination of remainers (e.g. Dominic Grieve) and hard brexiteers who block the deal.  I suspect some of the opposition to May's deal, however, was to wound her to the point of engineering a Tory succession by Boris.  So maybe those folks will now flip. 

Share this post


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

However, isn't this a bit of a sideshow now that BoJo has already been painted into a corner?

It is one of the strange things about the prorogation is that for all the drama and controversy it has caused, it doesn't actually seem to bring Boris a significant benefit. Maybe he really thought it might stop Parliament blocking no-deal, but clearly it wasn't enough to stop him.

I am not a Leaver, but at this point, I just want this s£!t over and done with. Modify the May deal with some all-Ireland thingammajiggery-pokery-bollockery with a Stormont effing lock or whatever tf and gtf out and let the economy get on with it. And yeah if there is money in the magic tree, then please more police, affordable housing, NHS funding, re-instating the worst austerity cuts. 

Just stop this bloody circus please.

/rant

Sorry :frown5:

Brexit is the gift that will keep on giving in terms of the political circus. Regardless of whether or not we leave or not on Halloween and what terms we might leave on the issues about European and international trade aren't going to go away. I suspect they'll still be having basically the same arguments 5 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So you think he can't survive as PM with either outcome?

If the MMD (modified May Deal) passes can he continue as a minority govt, or is an election in Nov an inevitability no matter what happens in Oct?

I guess proroguing still makes sense, because if Johnson didn't prorogue he probably would have lost a VONC. It seems the MMD was always a last resort to be triggered if no deal could not be achieved. But Johnson had to be PM to pull the trigger. A VONC at the start of September wouldn't allow him to do that.

Well, more like they are both as bad for him as each other. I guess I think he's already in enough trouble with the one nation wing he probably can't afford to fight the 'Spartans' and Farage too although he might think he can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quite get my head around why the DUP would support a deal which leaves the border in the Irish sea.  Surely having a hard border between NI and the rest of the UK, and having NI on same trade basis as the EU, is the first step towards leaving the UK?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

 

I am not a Leaver, but at this point, I just want this s£!t over and done with. 

From what i’ve read, this is exactly the kind of sentiment BoJo et al have been counting on eventually emerging to give them the currency for the push. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James Arryn said:

From what i’ve read, this is exactly the kind of sentiment BoJo et al have been counting on eventually emerging to give them the currency for the push. 

Yes I can see that now. To be clear though, I obviously don't support no deal. I will take the circus over that, but an MMD by Oct 31st over the circus. Maybe that was also part of Dominic's cunning plan all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Johnson has 2 options, be shot in the foot or shot in the face. If he puts lipstick on the May deal and gets that passed he shoots himself in the foot because some of the hard Brexiters in his party won't like it.

Even if he really, really wanted to do this, I can't see Boris Johnson conjuring up a majority in the current HoC to pass anything. He has alienated the opposition and a good chunk of his own party to extents Theresa May never did. He really needs a GE and a different HoC (and he knows this perfectly well, hence his insistence on a GE).

Share this post


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

Yes I can see that now. To be clear though, I obviously don't support no deal. I will take the circus over that, but an MMD by Oct 31st over the circus. Maybe that was also part of Dominic's cunning plan all along.

For those who "just want this over with" just ask yourself how long it will continue to be the defining aspect of British politics?

Hard leave and it will be generations. We have to deal with literally everyone in the world on the worst possible terms. The only quick deals available will be from nations wanting to rape us whilst we can't protest.

May's deal, and it will be at least a decade, probably 2-3. It just sets out the departure, notnthe future relationship with the EU, but it would make it easier to strike a deal with the EU, and harder for countries like the USA to rape us.

No Brexit, and the country will carry on, with chuntering from rabid leavers, which will probably take a decade or so to dampen from current levels back down to the background noise of the previous 30 years.

If you want a quick solution to this, there isn't one. But there is a solution where the problem is just noise, whilst parliament can get on with other things and we don't suffer further irreversible economic harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

For those who "just want this over with" just ask yourself how long it will continue to be the defining aspect of British politics?

Hard leave and it will be generations. We have to deal with literally everyone in the world on the worst possible terms. The only quick deals available will be from nations wanting to rape us whilst we can't protest.

May's deal, and it will be at least a decade, probably 2-3. It just sets out the departure, notnthe future relationship with the EU, but it would make it easier to strike a deal with the EU, and harder for countries like the USA to rape us.

 No Brexit, and the country will carry on, with chuntering from rabid leavers, which will probably take a decade or so to dampen from current levels back down to the background noise of the previous 30 years.

If you want a quick solution to this, there isn't one. But there is a solution where the problem is just noise, whilst parliament can get on with other things and we don't suffer further irreversible economic harm.

This.  May's deal will mitigate the worst impact of Brexit but it doesn't guarantee/secure the terms of the eventual trading relationship.  May's big mistake was to agree upon the sequencing forced upon her by the EU (supposedly because it was required by EU law).  The problem is that the EU has pretty clear incentives to dissuade other states from leaving by making any trade deal far inferior to SM membership.  Otherwise they will have a giant free rider problem on their hands. 

The principled solution to political crisis is compromise.  I can really only see one workable form:  a second referendum with three choices: remain, leave with deal (whether TM's or whatever updated deal Boris secures), or no-deal Brexit.  There should be a first and second choice option so that all three choices are treated fairly.  And we should implement the outcome no matter what the result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've noted before, a three option referendum is absolutely not going to be a workable way out of this. Anything less than a binary choice will risk the 'winning' option having a plurality of support but not a majority, and even if it results in a majority will result in the losing side crying foul.

To have the credibility to overcome the original referendum result, a second referendum must be a binary choice. Even then, there are risks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mormont said:

As I've noted before, a three option referendum is absolutely not going to be a workable way out of this. Anything less than a binary choice will risk the 'winning' option having a plurality of support but not a majority, and even if it results in a majority will result in the losing side crying foul.

To have the credibility to overcome the original referendum result, a second referendum must be a binary choice. Even then, there are risks. 

Wouldn't a 2-part referendum be better? part 1: in or out? Part 2: If out wins part 1 do you prefer out with a deal or out with no deal? Remainers will vote in for part 1, and I assume for part 2 they will vote out with a deal, I don't see a meaningful number of remainers voting for no deal in part 2. This will guarantee that no deal will never happen, because even if out wins a majority in part 1, a lot of out voters will be out with a deal voters, and then all the remain --> out with a deal voters will get out with a deal across the line for part 2 by a healthy margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wouldn't a 2-part referendum be better?

No. Whoever lost would inevitably argue that it lacked clarity, confused voters, and so on. 

Whatever other problems the 2016 referendum had, it presented voters with a clear binary choice. Of course, that was because at the time nobody foresaw that the possibility of leaving without a deal would become a real prospect that people would be advocating for: whatever they may say now, none of the leading Leave campaigners said at the time that they were in favour of that. But then, that just makes the point. Voters had a simple, clear choice in 2016 and we're still arguing over what the result actually meant. Referendums are where attractive theoretical constructs meet messy political reality. 

Take your second question, for example. Suppose that the response rate for that question is significantly lower than for the first. That might well happen because Remain voters interpret the question as being aimed at Leave voters, and don't bother to answer it. Or it might be because low-information voters don't really understand it, or care. I guarantee there would be arguments about what that result meant, and there would for sure be bitter arguments preceding the referendum about how it was to be worded.

Share this post


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

No. Whoever lost would inevitably argue that it lacked clarity, confused voters, and so on. 

Whatever other problems the 2016 referendum had, it presented voters with a clear binary choice. Of course, that was because at the time nobody foresaw that the possibility of leaving without a deal would become a real prospect that people would be advocating for: whatever they may say now, none of the leading Leave campaigners said at the time that they were in favour of that. But then, that just makes the point. Voters had a simple, clear choice in 2016 and we're still arguing over what the result actually meant. Referendums are where attractive theoretical constructs meet messy political reality. 

Take your second question, for example. Suppose that the response rate for that question is significantly lower than for the first. That might well happen because Remain voters interpret the question as being aimed at Leave voters, and don't bother to answer it. Or it might be because low-information voters don't really understand it, or care. I guarantee there would be arguments about what that result meant, and there would for sure be bitter arguments preceding the referendum about how it was to be worded.

Would any of these arguments be any worse than the current predicament? If someone can’t understand a two part question, I’d invite them to stay at home. Personally, it’d be nice to think that the question could be Remain or Leave With Deal (i.e continue to negotiate a deal and extend the date as required), seeing as we already ruled out a No Deal with Benn’s bill. That may well lead to an infinite Brexit but at least this way, whoever the Prime Minister is could say ‘yep, still negotiating’ every now and then and free up a hell of a lot more time for governing. It shuts the Remainers up, it shuts the No-Deal-ers up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are serious issues with a "Leave with deal to be negotiated" option though.

  • It could be any sort of deal from ultra soft to ultra hard, depending on who does the negotiation and how parliament votes - voters are being asked to vote for a big in a poke.
  • Economic damage continues because of the uncertainty.
  • At some point the EU are going to get tired of granting extensions and refuse. A Johnson might deliberately aim for this scenario.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we've been through the difficulties of a second referendum before. My personal favourite is first a three-option vote (May deal, no deal or remain) with the two most popular options from the first vote going to a second and final final referendum. But the brexiters would cry foul, saying this procedure would be rigging it for remain, because a) the leave votes in the first referendum would be split, leading to remain being almost certainly in the final vote, and b) it wouldn't include any of the other more or less realistic deal options that are on the table.

But this is all hypothetical. The main problem with any kind of new referendum is that parliament wouldn't be able to agree on doing it, let alone agree on how the question would be framed. 

Share this post


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

Would any of these arguments be any worse than the current predicament?

The question was whether this would get us out of the current predicament, not whether it wouldn't be any worse.

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

If someone can’t understand a two part question, I’d invite them to stay at home.

That's not how democracy works, I'm afraid. Besides, even smart people can (and do) make mistakes in voting - ticking the wrong box etc. That gets worse when you do things like two-stage or three-option referendums. Take it from me: I've run voting on a small scale, with a very engaged and smart electorate (university students) for years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a moot issue, because if Ref3 was to happen, it would be No Deal versus Remain. No other option seems logical or likely at the moment.

The appetite for Ref3 is greater than it was a few weeks back, but still not overwhelming. I think it will take a bit longer for people to really start clamouring for it, especially once the Remain parties realise that a general election is much easier to throw for Leave or even No Deal (thanks to the inequities of FPTP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I can really only see one workable form:  a second referendum with three choices: remain, leave with deal (whether TM's or whatever updated deal Boris secures), or no-deal Brexit.  There should be a first and second choice option so that all three choices are treated fairly.

Normally I'd agree, but I have a horrible suspicion that this might be one of the rare cases where there is no Condorcet winner, ie a majority prefer Remain to Deal, a majority prefer Deal to No Deal, and a majority prefer No Deal to Remain. The referendum needs to be a straight Remain vs Leave, with what Leave actually means finalised first. Either agree to a Deal, or commit to No Deal, then put it to the people.

Share this post


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

This is a moot issue, because if Ref3 was to happen, it would be No Deal versus Remain.

Hope you don't mind my using a quote from your response Werthead, this is meant more generally - 

How many voters actually understand what no deal is? Sure, I understand the mechanics of it, but not sure of all the implications of thousands of treaties or agreements that the EU entered in with other countries on the UK's behalf becoming null and void. Yes, some of these have been agreed to be 'carried over' bilaterally post-Brexit, but how many?

And what exactly happens between the UK and the EU on day 1 after noon deal? Sure, we can wave everything in for free for the nonce, what about the EU? What about services? Cross-border investment? Temporary travel and civil aviation probably can get agreed upon quickly. 

And what happens in Ireland? As someone pointed out, we can wave stuff in, but ROI/EU may not. What are the implications of that?

Under WTO, if you are importing stuff tariff-free from a country or bloc that you don't have a trade agreement, then you have to extend that to all other WTO members, so do we become a global dumping ground for low quality produce in a race to the bottom? Do we have the capacity to do regulatory checks given we have to do that on stuff being brought in from the EU as well? Or will an informal arrangement operate where stuff from the EU is not checked out of exigency (though we reserve the right to), but stuff from other continents is?

It's amazing how none of this stuff has ever been explained - well I guess it hasn't because it can't be - it's a nonsensical state of affairs.

Share this post


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

×