lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 17, 2019 9:28:22 GMT
This is interesting. We saw from the article 50 negotiations that a deadline worked in the EU's favour, not the UK's. The sort of bespoke, negotiated deal we were led to expect is said by just about everyone except the hardline brexiteers to be impossible in this timeframe, which then leaves BJ with 2 options - either go for no-deal at the end of 2020 or get a quick deal by caving to the EU's demands and letting them have everything they want in terms of level playing field, etc. Needless to say, neither option amounts to the brexit we were promised in 2016. The first will be very economically painful while the 2nd is the very opposite of taking back control.
Given all the advice he will be getting from civil servants about the disastrous consequences of no-deal, I suspect it means he is going to go for a soft brexit and by ruling out extensions he is in fact boxing in the ERG rather than himself. I think he is playing the ERG, just as he played the DUP and he will hope to get a softer brexit through Parliament with Labour and Lib Dem and NI votes. The reason why Theresa May's softer brexit deal did not get significant Liberal/Labour backing is because their MPs were still holding out hope for a 2nd referendum and did not wish to jeopardise that by facilitating brexit. Now that Remain is officially dead that hope is gone and it is now in their interest and their voters' interests to support BJ against the ERG to get a softer brexit if the alternative is no-deal. Likewise if a softer brexit weakens the Irish Sea border, the DUP will probably come on board for it.
The SNP's position in this scenario is harder to predict - they of course want the hardest possible brexit to cause the maximum pain in Scotland that they can blame on England in order to further their own independence agenda, their difficulty is they have to try and engineer this without being seen to do so. They did so brilliantly by supporting the 12 December election.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 17, 2019 10:34:35 GMT
The bill is just for show, if the push came to the shove Johnson has a big enough majority to un-legislate it as well. But it does rather box negotiators in.
Edit-also this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2019 16:50:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 18, 2019 12:38:48 GMT
The bill is just for show, if the push came to the shove Johnson has a big enough majority to un-legislate it as well. But it does rather box negotiators in. Agree, with the large majority it's just 'window-dressing' now - it does give a statement of intent but isn't that all, in practice? I guess the original intention was to put one more hurdle in the way of MPs voting for an extension in the event of only winning a very small majority last week, and some/all of that majority 'going wobbly' before the end of 2020. And it was in the manifesto so it's a bit of 'look I keep my promises' with presumably no cost attached. (Me being cynical again!)
I don't like the modern fashion for laws which "bind" governments to do/not do X Y Z when everyone knows (or should) that Parliament can undo them if there's a majority to do so. Like all the empty talk about the fixed term parliaments act needing 66% of MPs to call an early election... then abracadabra, a one-line bill 'notwithstanding' the FTPA and an election appears as if by magic!
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 19, 2019 9:33:42 GMT
The bill is just for show, if the push came to the shove Johnson has a big enough majority to un-legislate it as well. But it does rather box negotiators in.
I don't like the modern fashion for laws which "bind" governments to do/not do X Y Z when everyone knows (or should) that Parliament can undo them if there's a majority to do so. Like all the empty talk about the fixed term parliaments act needing 66% of MPs to call an early election... then abracadabra, a one-line bill 'notwithstanding' the FTPA and an election appears as if by magic!
Not sure if it was your intention, but you've just made a strong argument for a written constitution
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 19, 2019 12:04:58 GMT
I don't like the modern fashion for laws which "bind" governments to do/not do X Y Z when everyone knows (or should) that Parliament can undo them if there's a majority to do so. Like all the empty talk about the fixed term parliaments act needing 66% of MPs to call an early election... then abracadabra, a one-line bill 'notwithstanding' the FTPA and an election appears as if by magic!
Not sure if it was your intention, but you've just made a strong argument for a written constitution No, it wasn't my intent, although you're right, in this case, that could be such an argument. But while this is a constitutional example, some of the laws/proposals I was thinking of are everyday politics (such as spending commitments), not constitutional.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 11:10:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 20, 2019 13:43:06 GMT
For the withdrawal stage, probably yes. (As imo it should have been 3 years ago. A public vote is a public vote, even when I was on the losing side.)
But the arguments about the future partnership haven't even got warmed up yet and are the ones we need to be having. Though they presumably won't have the same 'binary' grip on the national imagination as Brexit Yes/No did. I can't really imagine someone with a megaphone standing outside Parliament 24/7 shouting 'Stop "Canada Plus Plus Plus"'.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 20, 2019 14:55:10 GMT
As expected, Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement breezed through second reading (358-234) and the 3-day programme motion for the rest of its passage was adopted (353-243).
Parliament will now break for Christmas, return on 7th January and likely finish passing the Withdrawal Agreement in the first week of sitting.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 20, 2019 15:01:30 GMT
Yes, Remain won the argument and Remain won the popular vote in 2019 but thanks to first past the post Boris won the election so we are leaving.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Dec 20, 2019 15:08:50 GMT
In realistic political terms, yes. There’s no way for remainers to stop Brexit now. That said, the ardent remainers who kept protesting there (including Mr Stop Brexit himself) seem to have vowed to keep campaigning. So I guess we can look forward to a ‘Rejoin’ campaign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 16:45:39 GMT
As expected, Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement breezed through second reading (358-234) and the 3-day programme motion for the rest of its passage was adopted (353-243). Parliament will now break for Christmas, return on 7th January and likely finish passing the Withdrawal Agreement in the first week of sitting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 16:52:52 GMT
Yes, Remain won the argument and Remain won the popular vote in 2019 but thanks to first past the post Boris won the election so we are leaving. I was under the impression that Leave vote won the 2016 referendum and that there has just been a landslide in favour of getting that result enacted. I was also of the impression that the Labour vote was split on the issue, hence the loss of Labour seats and their continued sitting on the fence regarding the issue. I suppose its just a different prism through which we see the facts.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 20, 2019 17:00:06 GMT
Yes, Remain won the argument and Remain won the popular vote in 2019 but thanks to first past the post Boris won the election so we are leaving. I was under the impression that Leave vote won the 2016 referendum and that there has just been a landslide in favour of getting that result enacted. I was also of the impression that the Labour vote was split on the issue, hence the loss of Labour seats and their continued sitting on the fence regarding the issue. I suppose its just a different prism through which we see the facts. I never mentioned the 2016 referendum
Based on the % of the vote won by the pro 2nd referendum parties in 2019, Remain won the popular vote and Leave lost it. Due to the 1st past the post electoral system and the Remain vote splitting between different parties while the Leave vote all stuck together, the Tories won a large majority of MPs. Those are the facts, I don't know what other way there is to see them?
In the UK you can win an election with 40% of the vote, but you need 50% to win a referendum. That's why the brexiteers were so desperate for an election and so terrified of a 2nd referendum. And sadly for the UK the leadership of the Remain parties played right into their hands.
However winning a House of Commons majority won't make the brexiteers' lies come true all of a sudden, as all of us, Leavers and Remainers alike, discover to our cost in due course.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Dec 20, 2019 22:16:36 GMT
Hello again.
The trouble with 20/20 hindsight, is that while it reveals that mistakes were made, we can do nothing about them. The referendum should have been a 60% majority. Not only that there should have a been a longer period where it was made clearer what the benefits of staying in the EU were. The Leave side made all the running and won the propaganda war. As usual an important question with huge repurcussions was rushed through. No thought given to the consequences. The result of this awful process has been a toxic and divided country, inceasingly agressive confrontation from all sides and weak government for the past three years.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 20, 2019 23:30:17 GMT
I was under the impression that Leave vote won the 2016 referendum and that there has just been a landslide in favour of getting that result enacted. I was also of the impression that the Labour vote was split on the issue, hence the loss of Labour seats and their continued sitting on the fence regarding the issue. I suppose its just a different prism through which we see the facts. I never mentioned the 2016 referendum
Based on the % of the vote won by the pro 2nd referendum parties in 2019, Remain won the popular vote and Leave lost it. Due to the 1st past the post electoral system and the Remain vote splitting between different parties while the Leave vote all stuck together, the Tories won a large majority of MPs. Those are the facts, I don't know what other way there is to see them?
In the UK you can win an election with 40% of the vote, but you need 50% to win a referendum. That's why the brexiteers were so desperate for an election and so terrified of a 2nd referendum. And sadly for the UK the leadership of the Remain parties played right into their hands.
However winning a House of Commons majority won't make the brexiteers' lies come true all of a sudden, as all of us, Leavers and Remainers alike, discover to our cost in due course.
In the 80s some people on the left used to add up the 'anti-Tory' vote and claim that Thatcher didn't really win the elections because she got less than 50%. Despite the fact that many centre party voters like me (it was still the Liberal/SDP Alliance then I remember) would have chosen Conservative over Labour in an either/or run-off of the sort they use in France.
People don't necessarily vote in an election as they would in a referendum. For most people this wasn't a single-issue election, or if it was, the issue wasn't necessarily Brexit. The NHS, Corbyn, anti-Semitism, the economy, Boris, Scottish independence, local issues/MP, etc., etc. Who knows why each person voted how they did?
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 21, 2019 0:06:47 GMT
I never mentioned the 2016 referendum
Based on the % of the vote won by the pro 2nd referendum parties in 2019, Remain won the popular vote and Leave lost it. Due to the 1st past the post electoral system and the Remain vote splitting between different parties while the Leave vote all stuck together, the Tories won a large majority of MPs. Those are the facts, I don't know what other way there is to see them?
In the UK you can win an election with 40% of the vote, but you need 50% to win a referendum. That's why the brexiteers were so desperate for an election and so terrified of a 2nd referendum. And sadly for the UK the leadership of the Remain parties played right into their hands.
However winning a House of Commons majority won't make the brexiteers' lies come true all of a sudden, as all of us, Leavers and Remainers alike, discover to our cost in due course.
In the 80s some people on the left used to add up the 'anti-Tory' vote and claim that Thatcher didn't really win the elections because she got less than 50%. Despite the fact that many centre party voters like me (it was still the Liberal/SDP Alliance then I remember) would have chosen Conservative over Labour in an either/or run-off of the sort they use in France.
People don't necessarily vote in an election as they would in a referendum. For most people this wasn't a single-issue election, or if it was, the issue wasn't necessarily Brexit. The NHS, Corbyn, anti-Semitism, the economy, Boris, Scottish independence, local issues/MP, etc., etc. Who knows why each person voted how they did?
Yes but the vast majority of opinion polls in the last 12 months put remain on 53%ish, which ties with the election result Plus a lot of people who switched to or stuck with the Tories were anti Corbyn voters, probably more so than pro brexit and what we know so far from polls / surveys suggests anti-Corbynism was a bigger factor than support for brexit. That is why a lot of Tory remainers stuck with boris in spite of misgivings. I think we can all agree that the Labour vote - ie the 2nd ref vote - would have been even higher if Labour had a different leader. Finally there was brexit fatigue, the desire to get it finished with. Boris tapped into that with his get brexit done slogan (yet another of his many lies), but I would put it to you that in a 2nd ref, those same people who didn't really care either way, but just wanted it over and voted tory in the election, would have been more likely to vote remain in a 2nd ref as that would have been the surest way to end the whole process once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Dec 21, 2019 1:58:23 GMT
It's also possible imo that the polls showing a 'remain' lead over recent months have been as much a comment on the stalemate/chaos at Westminster as anything else. 'Well, if that's what Brexit is going to mean for our politics then let's just forget the whole thing.'
After a few years out of the EU, people will presumably be able to judge whether the grass really was greener on the inside. There would be nothing to stop Labour/LibDems promising to hold a new referendum to start talks with the E.U. for Bre-entry when they win an election, if they think that's what the public would like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 8:13:11 GMT
The plan to get our country back!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 17:42:06 GMT
I was under the impression that Leave vote won the 2016 referendum and that there has just been a landslide in favour of getting that result enacted. I was also of the impression that the Labour vote was split on the issue, hence the loss of Labour seats and their continued sitting on the fence regarding the issue. I suppose its just a different prism through which we see the facts. I never mentioned the 2016 referendum
Based on the % of the vote won by the pro 2nd referendum parties in 2019, Remain won the popular vote and Leave lost it. Due to the 1st past the post electoral system and the Remain vote splitting between different parties while the Leave vote all stuck together, the Tories won a large majority of MPs. Those are the facts, I don't know what other way there is to see them?
In the UK you can win an election with 40% of the vote, but you need 50% to win a referendum. That's why the brexiteers were so desperate for an election and so terrified of a 2nd referendum. And sadly for the UK the leadership of the Remain parties played right into their hands.
However winning a House of Commons majority won't make the brexiteers' lies come true all of a sudden, as all of us, Leavers and Remainers alike, discover to our cost in due course.
As I say, it there is more than one way of seeing the same situation - not a black and white, right or wrong side of an argument. I refer to the 2016 result as something that should have been decisive and as we have seen whereby the result has been contested since, the matter remains open to eternal argument and debate without closure, as it is interpreted as a result that can still be contested. Many voters want it to get done, either by cancellation or implementation, so as to move on to other business of running the country. I hope my posts did not come across as gloating at the outcome, but rather, that we can all move on, and that the predictions of the consequences are still debatable. I am an optimist in regards to Brexit, whilst I appreciate your own pessimism. By breaking out of the stalemate in parliament, we can better judge things in time. I appreciate that any renegotiated reentry into the EU with tails between our legs will be as a lesser partner than at present, but I feel that risk is understood, however significant it remains and may grow the longer we are out, if we fail to secure the essential and anticipated trade deals. Again, your opinions are taken aboard and not dismissed. Its more glass half full, half empty perspective. Thanks for engaging/replying.
|
|