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

[ants]

14 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

......

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. 

This kind of structure though has an issue that you may get a result which the majority of the UK don't want.  Which is hardly democracy.  A majority may be against either no-deal Brexit or deal Brexit, but there may be a majority for Brexit in general.  You're approach locks people into potentially choosing an option they don't want.

Better to have pure preferential where everyone just votes in order of their preferences, 1 to 3.  Much easier to explain as well.  And if people stuff it up, as long as they put a (single) 1 against something, you can allow that as a passing vote which means at least their first vote is counted.  Then just push advertising to say that you put a "1" against your preference, and if you want to you can number down to 3.  

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, ants said:

Better to have pure preferential where everyone just votes in order of their preferences, 1 to 3.  Much easier to explain as well.  And if people stuff it up, as long as they put a (single) 1 against something, you can allow that as a passing vote which means at least their first vote is counted.  Then just push advertising to say that you put a "1" against your preference, and if you want to you can number down to 3.  

People that haven't lived with preferential voting really seem to be sceptical of the idea in a lot of cases, those of us that have find the idea of not using it (or something that attempts to be more representative from a different angle like proportional rep - which obviously isn't applicable for this) just as bizarre. It really does seem like the obvious approach to me as well but every time I've seen someone propose it for this it doesn't seem to get any traction.

[felice]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't see that as likely given the first two results. Some people might rank it as 1. no deal, 2. remain, 3. deal, but that is surely a very very small proportion of no dealers.

If it's close, only a small proportion would be needed. It doesn't seem too implausible for a significant number of no-dealers to consider the deal to be worse than remain, in that the UK would continue to be subject to EU rules but would no longer have a say about them. I hope you're right, but if it happened, it would be pretty catastrophic for the validity of the referendum.

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Which really brings me to the correct solution for a 3 option choice where you want 50%+1 as the win condition: single transferrable voting.

The problem with that is it could eliminate everyone's second choice in the first step...

[Which Tyler]

This is concerning: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trade-bill-dropped-brexit-prorogation-boris-johnson-trump-a9102516.html

Quote

The trade bill has been dropped – and now MPs have no way to stop bad deals after Brexit

Boris Johnson’s controversial decision to prorogue parliament did many things, but at its most basic level the break from ordinary parliamentary business simply means that an old legislative session comes to an end and a new one begins. The government decides which unfinished bills it wants to keep and reintroduces them in the new parliamentary session. The rest are simply dropped. 

The trade bill, once considered one of the most important pieces of Brexit legislation, is one such bill to have been abandoned.

It is always unusual for a government to deliberately drop legislation – why introduce something you don’t intend to pass? – but the case of the trade bill, in particular, should concern us all. Its death means MPs now won’t get a say on our post-Brexit trade deals. Politicians in both houses of parliament worked to amend the bill over a period of two years. The amendment gave MPs a guaranteed vote on post-Brexit trade agreements, such as any deal with Donald Trump.

 

Believe it or not, without the amendment proposed in that bill the UK’s system of trade deal ratification doesn’t give MPs any meaningful or guaranteed say over the country's trade agreements. So as things stand, after Brexit we will revert to a World War I convention called the "Ponsonby rule" for ratifying international deals. This convention severely limits the role of MPs; it was created to deal with secret defence treaties, long before trade deals were as globally significant as they are now. 

 

Article continues... 

[mormont]

In which David Cameron rues the real damage of Brexit - to his friendship with Michael Gove.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49690618
 

Quote

 

Mr Cameron also spoke of the damage to his friendships - including the one between him and Mr Gove, who had been close friends since university.

"We've spoken," he said. "Not a huge amount. I've sort of had a conversation with him.

"I've spoken to the prime minister a little bit, mainly through texts, but Michael was a very good friend. So that has been more difficult."

 

World's tiniest violin, etc.

 

[DMC]

Just saw this, made me laugh - Coppola gets into 'Godfather' spat with UK's Johnson:

Quote

Coppola, who wants Britain to stay in the EU, told London's Financial News that Brexit looked like it was heading for a disaster more reminiscent of the 1979 war film "Apocalypse Now".

"The Godfather seems to be the favorite film of modern history's most brutal figures, including Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gadhafi and others," he told Friday's edition of the news site by email.

"I love the United Kingdom and its many contributions to humanity, ranging from our beautiful language and Newtonian physics to penicillin," the 80-year-old Italian American wrote.

"And (I) am horrified that it would even consider doing such a foolish thing as leaving the European Union."

I'm still mad at you for failing to make a good movie for the past, like, twenty years, but way to be Coppola!

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, felice said:

 

The problem with that is it could eliminate everyone's second choice in the first step...

That's not a problem. If "everyone's" 2nd choice is remain (for example) it means remain will certainly be a distant 3rd in the first choice so a substantial majority of people want to leave. It is right then that remain be eliminated in the first round. Remain is taken out of the running and it comes down to deal or no deal. The remain voters 2nd choice is then tallied to give the result. The remain 1st voters will determine the manner of Brexit.

But more likely it will be no deal 3rd. And in that your hypothesis that enough no-dealers could break for remain to give remain the win over a deal will indeed be put to the test. But remain may win a majority in the first round. Doesn't polling suggest this is a possibility?

[The Marquis de Leech]

The other option in designing a referendum would be a binary option of May's Deal vs No Deal, on the reasoning that 2016 eliminated Remain. But half the country would be screaming blue murder.

[mormont]

Rightly so: the idea that 2016 'eliminated Remain' is tenuous at best, seeing as how Remain probably has more support (then and now) than either May's deal or no deal.

[Maltaran]

I think any referendum would be Remain v Deal, on the basis that Parliament voted against no deal.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Maltaran said:

I think any referendum would be Remain v Deal, on the basis that Parliament voted against no deal.

But Parliament has also voted against Deal three times. Boris Johnson's new deal, which is apparently coming together, is just May's deal with the backstop moved from all of the UK to Northern Ireland alone, so is a mildly reheated version of what was shot down already.

I can't seen any kind of logical or plausible alternative to a referendum choice but between Remain (perhaps presented as Remain & Reform) and No Deal. Alternative-vote choices, transferable votes etc are all simply not going to happen in a million years in our current political system. It will be two choices and that's it.

Interesting movement elsewhere with quite a few British politicians now saying that the UK needs a codified, written Constitution. We've always resisted having one because of how it slows legislative progress and logjams urgently-needed legal reform by using ossified and outdated concepts as a legal foundation (as in the United States), but the arguments that we now need harder-established rules to resist exploitation of the system are now more persuasive.

Also some interesting reports that the exiled Tory MPs are considering standing in the next election under the title "Independent Conservatives." Some interesting maths being thrown around showing how this will split the vote in multiple constituencies, including Uxbridge where Boris is MP. If Amber Rudd stands against him there, as is being discussed, that could allow Labour to win, assuming they maintain their previous vote (which itself was the result of a 13.6% swing to Labour in 2017, reducing Boris's majority to a starting-to-look-dicey 5,000).

Boris being thrown out of office and out of Parliament by local constituency votes, even if the Conservatives won overall, would be hilarious.

[Maltaran]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Boris being thrown out of office and out of Parliament by local constituency votes, even if the Conservatives won overall, would be hilarious.

Labour have been planning to go hard against him anyway given the small majority, especially because of his flip-flop on the Heathrow third runway. If they do win, he would be the first sittng PM ever to lose his seat.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

I can't seen any kind of logical or plausible alternative to a referendum choice but between Remain (perhaps presented as Remain & Reform) and No Deal. Alternative-vote choices, transferable votes etc are all simply not going to happen in a million years in our current political system. It will be two choices and that's it. 

This.

The important thing is that Leave has to get nailed on one outcome this time. And not them proposing a milion different version of what leave means, and then agree on one after the vote. Since the leading leavers are now on-board with no-deal that should be the leave option. And not some Johnson Unicorn fanstasy deal or no-deal vote.

 

[Chaircat Meow]

Sam Gyimah has just joined the liberals. 

[Chaircat Meow]

This is very bad. Not sure why Lab-Lib-SNP-PC and ToryRebels vote for an election in these circumstances. 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 37% (+2)

LAB: 25% (-)

LDEM: 16% (-1)

BREX: 13% (-)

GRN: 2% (-1)

via @OpiniumResearch, fieldwork this week Chgs. w/ 06 Sep

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Eventually they have to at some point. The question is just when. Leaving this GINO (Goverment in name only) in charge till the end of its term is not sustainable as it leaves the Britanic more or less rudderless adrift. But then again, I also thought the insanity of British politics was not sustainable two years ago, and yet here we are, with the politics circus still going strong (and stable).

However a referendum has to precede a GE imo, as Brexit really has to be resolved before in some shape or form. Otherwise the GE gets turned into a proxy referendum with a split remain vote and FPTP advantage for leavers. Given the pace with which the Labour Politburo is moving towards a new referendum, this might take a while.

So I think this circus will play out along the lines of somethign like this. Extension till the end of January. Still no movement in either direction, Corbyn finally accpeting that a second referendum has to happen. Another extension to offer the time window for a new referendum. After all the huff and puff and legal challenges and whinging from the ERG, the referendum will take place mid 2020. New election October-November 2020. However my crystal ball has been dropped a few times and is not particularly clean, thus not a particularly reliable predictor. If anybody else wants to take a guess about what's going to happen, when.

[felice]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The important thing is that Leave has to get nailed on one outcome this time.

Yes. In fact it shouldn't be a Leave vs Remain vote at all; it should be "This is what Leave actually means; should we go ahead with it? Y/N". I think that's more than a semantic distinction - the debate shouldn't be presented as a competition between two candidates where we have to pick one, the focus should be entirely on whether Brexit is a good idea or not.

[DireWolfSpirit]

"I love the United Kingdom and its many contributions to humanity, ranging from our beautiful language and Newtonian physics to penicillin," the 80-year-old Italian American wrote.

Don't know why, but I was surprised at this. I hadn't connected Isaac Newton with the UK.  Feeling silly about that, but I probably would've guessed Germany, it should've been clear as Newton sounds much more English doesn't it?

[DireWolfSpirit]

So is the EU sufficiently fed up with this mess that they would take a hardline of NO to any extensions? From an outsiders perspective that looks like a real possibility.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

28 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So is the EU sufficiently fed up with this mess that they would take a hardline of NO to any extensions? From an outsiders perspective that looks like a real possibility.

Possible, but unlikely. Ireland in particular has no interest in a crash out. And despite all the rumbling I wouldn't consider it likely, that the EU effectively go against the explicit wishes of a member just to prove a point.  As unsatisfactory as the whole situation might be...