Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

I'll not pick at the detail of that but it was going well till the last sentence. Two out of the last three GEs have brought no overall majority (and the other one didn't give May a big enough majority over her own bastards to be confident of getting a deal). So a GE may not bring anything to a close.

You make a good point - but mainly it is a separate one to the main thrust of what I have put forward as the way I could/can see things unfolding.

In other posts I have been clear that I am against a 2nd referendum as for me that just rewards the shenanigans the Remain dominated HoC as they will ensure that the questions are totally loaded - I would vote Remain before I would vote for May's deal and also there is a lot of Brexit fatigue.

I see a 2nd referendum as simply a way for the Remainers to legitimise abandoning Brexit by getting the electorate's fingerprints on the decision and saving their faces and the trouble of revoking.

For me if a GE has Brexit as a central factor I really think that there could be a workable majority.

If I was a Remainer - I would want a referendum

As I am a Leaver - I want a GE

 

[Rascal]

Many labour constituencies voted strongly to leave..

This is a really disingenuous point as is Scotland voted to remain etc.

The vote was a national vote, it was not constituency based and that combination of voting systems really is irrelevant to the outcome. If it was constituency based as it could have been and delegates were elected on a one off special basis then Brexit would have been enacted with no problem. However at the general election people did not vote just on the basis of leave or remain. There were other factors that people considered to be more important. For instance, myself would always vote on the whole manifesto and especially the health policies and the brexit question was irrelevant to me

 

[Vic]

You make a good point - but mainly it is a separate one to the main thrust of what I have put forward as the way I could/can see things unfolding.

In other posts I have been clear that I am against a 2nd referendum as for me that just rewards the shenanigans the Remain dominated HoC as they will ensure that the questions are totally loaded - I would vote Remain before I would vote for May's deal and also there is a lot of Brexit fatigue.

I see a 2nd referendum as simply a way for the Remainers to legitimise abandoning Brexit by getting the electorate's fingerprints on the decision and saving their faces and the trouble of revoking.

For me if a GE has Brexit as a central factor I really think that there could be a workable majority.

If I was a Remainer - I would want a referendum

As I am a Leaver - I want a GE

Just to be clear, by loaded you mean people who want to leave would have to face reality and choose how they want to leave.

And this would be a bad thing because....?

 

[Saddleworth2]

I made several references in a number of posts with regard to what I see as the obvious way that this should/will/would have unfold(ed) - such as the one above (500 pages ago).

In summary the steps would be:

Start by recognising the red lines of Summer 2019:

1. The EU cannot reopen the WA - even if they would have they cannot now after all that has been said

2. The current UK parliament will not sign-off on any arrangement that sees the UK leaving the EU

3. Johnson is committed to bring this to a close and has/will stake his political future on achieving this

4. The EU's revised 'Ideal' option is the WA with an unfettered backstop which keeps the UK under tight control for many years to come whilst removing the fly from the ointment. Failing that their 'realistic' option is the UK remaining in the EU and their 'fallback' option is reaching some accommodation with the UK that prevents No-Deal

5. Without a 'form of' No-Deal / walk-away scenario the EU are never going to need to move from their Ideal or Realistic options to their Fallback option - therefore they have observed and worked with their Westminster supporters to remove the threat of a No-Deal and kept their powder dry.

6. Leave supporters (in government) know that if the threat of No-Deal is removed then there is absolutely no incentive for the EU to make any shift from their Ideal and Realistic positions

So.………….

At the time of posting I was saying that the only approach that can satisfy all the above is to:

8. Engineer a situation where the EU is indeed facing the threat of a No-Deal ahead of their mid-October meeting

9. Determine a manner in which the backstop can be effectively fettered - ideally through a time-limit or otherwise by the achievement of pre-determined criteria that are achievable by the UK and under its control.

10. Draft the PD to include the fettering of the backstop as described above - so the EU does not have to reopen the WA and Johnson can claim that he has effectively 'removed' the backstop.

11. Provide a 'limited backstop' which would be e.g. at the end of the time-limit set out in the PD and should the pre-determined criteria not have been achieved then N.I. will remain in the backstop until the criteria has been achieved. This was the previous EU position and likely would have been adopted until May fucked up her 2017 election and became dependent on the DUP.

12. The above - setting DUP politics to one side - provides a unique position for the people of N.I. and should be welcomed.

13. Bringing N.I. politics back into the frame - bring forward a proposal for a referendum in N.I consistent with the provisions of the GFA to determine whether N.I. remains in the UK or transitions to a part of an 'all Island Ireland'. That would indeed be interesting for the ROI as the reality of what that means kicks in. If N.I. remains in the UK following the referendum then work on achieving the pre-determined backstop criteria continues until achieved.

14. The above means all the stress and drama disappears and allows all parties to feel a sense of 'victory' - history will demonstrate the entire issue was blown up/weaponised as a negotiating tactic - I would think sensibly so if I was on the EU side.

Since making these posts the legislation has been confirmed that will prevent the No-Deal scenario - see points 4 & 5 above. This does not really change anything in this scenario - except the weightings on how it will play out. For instance:

15. There was always going to have to be a GE as the HoC will not sign up to any WA without a Leave majority and the DUP would not support the proposals above - despite them being obvious and simple. Johnson was hoping though for that to be called after he had placed the EU in a position where it had to move to the Fallback position or genuinely see a No-Deal - IMO they would indeed move and be able to claim that they are only doing what they had always offered.

16. The legislation has potentially scuppered Johnson from enacting this series of events and provides more encouragement to the EU that they can secure their Ideal or Realistic options.

For the UK a GE is needed urgently so that this can be brought to a close - either way.

11. Provide a 'limited backstop' which would be e.g. at the end of the time-limit set out in the PD and should the pre-determined criteria not have been achieved then N.I. will remain in the backstop until the criteria has been achieved. This was the previous EU position and likely would have been adopted until May fucked up her 2017 election and became dependent on the DUP.

Pre determined criteria such as a customs method that ensures an open border? You would require the time limit to be set accordingly.

13. Bringing N.I. politics back into the frame - bring forward a proposal for a referendum in N.I consistent with the provisions of the GFA to determine whether N.I. remains in the UK or transitions to a part of an 'all Island Ireland'. That would indeed be interesting for the ROI as the reality of what that means kicks in. If N.I. remains in the UK following the referendum then work on achieving the pre-determined backstop criteria continues until achieved.

IMO far too early for this and may cause a great deal more problems than it resolves. I'm not entirely sure you would need it in your solution. Surely the placing of an agreed time limit is the most important thing.

I can certainly see merit, it all supposes that the EU would move to this under 'no deal' pressure. There is no real indication that they would have. Realistically we will never know.

Whoever lead this was never going to get the 100% support for a position (you can get when you are negotiating on behalf of a PLC). Politics is just not like that and MP's are allowed a democratic opinion about what is right for the country. There was always going to be a remain faction in parliament so was it not always a fools dream to believe everyone would just fall in line? Anyway, looks like a GE before Christmas but after 31/10. I am sure there are a few turns to come before that. I remain unconvinced that a GE will resolve this as we may well end up with another hung parliament. We shall see. Good post by the way.

 

[Rascal]

For me if a GE has Brexit as a central factor I really think that there could be a workable majority.

And in my opinion that would be a wrong reason to have a GE. There is more to politics than BREXIT, although it appears there is not at the moment.

I want to vote on which party is best for the country on a whole range of policy not just on one. For example if another referendum was held I would vote leave, but at a General Election I will be voting for Labour who at the moment do not support leave, so the basis for Brexit becomes clouded by other issues.

 

[mcfc1632]

Just to be clear, by loaded you mean people who want to leave would have to face reality and choose how they want to leave.

And this would be a bad thing because....?

Cannot get involved - back to work some today after an overly long break

No - I do not mean that and I am not being 'difficult'

The May WA is a dreadful deal that cannot be voted for whilst it contains an unfettered backstop - the Remain dominated HoC would ensure that it is that Vs Remain - total stitch up

For me the logic of your argument should be a choice for people to decide how they want to leave - May's deal (or a revised version if offered by the EU) or No-Deal

But as I say - the Remain dominated HoC would not take any risk like that and enact a stitch up instead.

Anyway, enjoy the day

 

[Vic]

This is a really disingenuous point as is Scotland voted to remain etc.

The vote was a national vote, it was not constituency based and that combination of voting systems really is irrelevant to the outcome. If it was constituency based as it could have been and delegates were elected on a one off special basis then Brexit would have been enacted with no problem. However at the general election people did not vote just on the basis of leave or remain. There were other factors that people considered to be more important. For instance, myself would always vote on the whole manifesto and especially the health policies and the brexit question was irrelevant to me

The

Cannot get involved - back to work some today after an overly long break

No - I do not mean that and I am not being 'difficult'

The May WA is a dreadful deal that cannot be voted for whilst it contains an unfettered backstop - the Remain dominated HoC would ensure that it is that Vs Remain - total stitch up

For me the logic of your argument should be a choice for people to decide how they want to leave - May's deal (or a revised version if offered by the EU) or No-Deal

But as I say - the Remain dominated HoC would not take any risk like that and enact a stitch up instead.

Anyway, enjoy the day

Ta.

I did forget to add that hoping a GE will sort things out doesn't take account of the fact that the last GE gave us a government elected on a manifesto commitment that
Theresa May’s Conservatives will deliver the best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit. No "no deal" mentioned.

 

[Rascal]

But as I say - the Remain dominated HoC would not take any risk like that and enact a stitch up instead.

It is like that because it was the will of the people and obviously people have many other issues that they care about before Brexit.

I respect it may be the most important issue to you, but obviously to others given the results it is not, democracy like you said, bites you in the bum sometimes.

This conflagration between direct and representative democracy is extremely destructive and highly damaging to our democracy. Words like stitch up are not helping mate, they are pitting system against system and its already at breaking point.

 

[BobKowalski]

This has always been the likely outcome and would have been agreed in 2017 if May had not fucked up her election. That she did emboldened the EU to seek for a far more desirable outcome in which it could negate the risk of an independent UK just off its shores by placing us under tightly fettered controls.

Such an outcome will allow all sides to 'claim victory' - except the DUP

Given this is the EU’s version of the backstop rather than the current U.K. version then yes I guess the EU will be delighted. Johnson can claim ‘victory’ at passing May’s WA if he likes but the price of ‘victory’ will be seen by hard line Brexiteers as the enforced dissolution by the EU of our Union as NI will in effect remain in the EU. If you recall both Tories and Labour MPs at the time objected to the separation of NI from mainland Britain. As for the DUP well they were dumb enough to campaign for Brexit so you reap what you sow.

And if it’s good enough for the Irish then it’s good enough for the Scots. If you create a mechanism where NI can to an extent enjoy the best of both worlds then the Scots and the Welsh may fancy availing themselves of it as well.

I would caution this is just chatter from political journos and may not pan out or again the WA still may not pass the House.

 

[BlueHammer85]

It was not that he promised it, it was why he promised it.

At the time I posted why and people were that caught up in his promise they missed the reason why he promised it. He didn't do it to decide anything positive for the future, he did it to save his own backside. That was a dreadful reason to promise it. As PM there was no other reason to have a vote other than to cement his power and his parties hegemony.

The whole sorry episode has been an exercise about the Tory party and those of us who could not give two fucks about the Tory party have been dragged into the Tory party in-fighting. There should never have been a referendum without first having a written constitution and the country is paying a huge price for one mans vanity. It has created unprecedented chaos and undeliverable aims because one mans vanity did not take into account the possibility of losing. That arrogance of his is to blame for everything, not the result, not the positions the electorate took, not the way people voted, not the result, but most definitely the outcome.

History will I imagine judge him as the worst PM of his generation and it will look kindly on May who valiantly attempted to clean up his mess. That the chaos his arrogance and vanity has lead the country into having the second worst PM of this generation will cement Cameron's place at the top of a really sorry looking tree. It is no wonder the vain **** ran away to live in a caravan because deep down he must know that it all comes down to him.

Hindsight’s a wonderful thing - the clamour for a referendum was rising and rising , eventually a PM was going to give one -
Cameron may have campaigned for remain to ‘save his own backside’ but he clearly spelt out the benefits of remaining (trade, economically etc) and the negatives of leaving - unfortunately more people listened to Farage with his easy anti immigrant rhetoric.