The future of the uk is up for grabs.

[328982]

Dear me no. The only way she was ever going to achieve her ambition of being PM was if she agreed to be the fall guy for the conservative party brexit failure.

She didnt have to work hard to get an unworkable deal. All she had to do was tell the negotiators to get the best deal possible. It was guaranteed to be unworkable because there is no workable brexit outcome. She placed leavers in charge to be sure they would try hard. All she had to do was ask leavers to negotiate the best deal they could, then present it to parliament where it would be massively rejected as awful. Simples.

Well, I hope you are right. So the next step is what... a second referendum? How are we going to be forced to remain without dropping the democratic fig leaf?

 

[dandelion]

Well, I hope you are right. So the next step is what... a second referendum? How are we going to be forced to remain without dropping the democratic fig leaf?

I am thinking the simplest and safest way to proceed would be to announce that parliament cannot agree a version of brexit so more time is needed, therefore we are withdrawing article 50 to have a bit of a think.

Ther are some straws suggesting we are going that way. People ar saying we need to extend article 50. Which of course we have no power to do, only to withdraw it.

 

[Adrian69702006]

I've just blogged on this very subject:

What next? | LPSG

 

[dandelion]

I've just blogged on this very subject:

Ah. Unfortunate you do not uphold the requirment that the speaker speak and act on behalf of the commons, not on behalf of the government. His job description requires him to defy government interference if the house chooses. Several have died doing so. (admittedly, not recently)

Unfortunate too that you dont recognise it is entirely correct for labour to not waste everyone's time by insisting that 'no deal' must be off the table before talking. If the government does not agree it is not a possible outcome, then here isnt vey much to talk about.

In the context of brexit its no use talking about 'making the perfect the enemy of the good' because there is no version of brexit which could be describd as good. Its either bad or worse: most MPs agree remaining is better, even when they dont think thats very good either. It would be helpfull for everyone if the government admitted they think remaining is the best option, and everyone else very much worse. It isn very meaningfull to try to pick a better brexit because they are all bad.

 

[Adrian69702006]

Ah. Unfortunate you do not uphold the requirment that the speaker speak and act on behalf of the commons, not on behalf of the government. His job description requires him to defy government interference if the house chooses. Several have died doing so. (admittedly, not recently)

Unfortunate too that you dont recognise it is entirely correct for labour to not waste everyone's time by insisting that 'no deal' must be off the table before talking. If the government does not agree it is not a possible outcome, then here isnt vey much to talk about.

In the context of brexit its no use talking about 'making the perfect the enemy of the good' because there is no version of brexit which could be describd as good. Its either bad or worse: most MPs agree remaining is better, even when they dont think thats very good either. It would be helpfull for everyone if the government admitted they think remaining is the best option, and everyone else very much worse. It isn very meaningfull to try to pick a better brexit because they are all bad.

I take it you're a remainer, dandelion. 52% of the UK electorate voted to leave the EU in the 2016 refrendum. The Government has a duty to try and deliver on that. Of course there are members of the Government and parliamentarians on both sides of the House for that matter who sincerely believe that remaining is the better option and their natural inclination is to try and frustrate the process if they can. Unfortunately the Speaker has demonstrated bias in not treating leavers and remainers with equal fairness and for that he should be ashamed. I happen to think that Britain can do well outside the big Franco-German project, so long as trading relationships and arrangements are kept functioning. I honestly don't think our future prosperity will be helped by clinging to a dying, corrupt gravy train that's going nowhere fast. 'No deal' is Mrs May's strongest cards. She would be foolish to give it away as the price for having talks with a man who's only after a General Election whicvh he'll most likely lose and which, at this juncture, would waste 6 weeks of parliamentary time which can ill be spared. Even if by some miracle we had one and he became PM, there wouldn't be any time left for a change of policy, not that there would be one anyway. Corbyn was dragged kicking and screaming into the remain campaign (Project Fear mark 1) and, whatever his public utterances, is at heart just as much a Brexiteer as Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

[dandelion]

I take it you're a remainer, dandelion. 52% of the UK electorate voted to leave the EU in the 2016 refrendum.

Whooh! Thats a lie.

About 37% of the UK electorate voted to leave the EU. Which means 63% did not.

The Government has a duty to try and deliver on that.

It does not. The referendum was advisory only, the government is not bound to do anything. Especially since so few voted to leave . In fact only 30,000 more voted to leave this time than voted to remain in the first referendum. And right now all the polls are saying the nation wants to remain. (oh, and since there are more voters now, the percentage voting to remain in '75 was bigger than the percentage voting to leave now. Anyone saying there cannot be a second referendum, needs to conside the recent one WAS the second referendum)

Of course there are members of the Government and parliamentarians on both sides of the House for that matter who sincerely believe that remaining is the better option

A large majority, in fact, including a majority of conservatives.

Unfortunately the Speaker has demonstrated bias in not treating leavers and remainers with equal fairness

You are right, he has grossly helped leavers.

and for that he should be ashamed.

Oh I agree, remainers should have insisted on ther rights a year ago. However, the job of the speaker is to allow the commons to do what it wants. He organises business on the behalf of all the members, so if they want to vote to remain, his job is to make sure thy can.

I happen to think that Britain can do well outside the big Franco-German project, so long as trading relationships and arrangements are kept functioning.

Thats like saying I can be millionaire, just so long as everyone else gives me all their money.There is no way to make thm do it! The irony is that leavers want to leave the EU, the worlds biggest and best trade deal, and instead create the worlds best trade deal with the EU. Thats just daft. They want to join what they want to leave.

'No deal' is Mrs May's strongest cards.

For what purpose? The news was again pushing the idea that the EU will suddenly offer a new deal at the last moment. It will not, and an Irish politicians was saying so. It is in their interest to get rid of us as quickly as possible because we cannot even make up our mind what we want to do! The Uk is heading for disaster not least because it cannot agree what to do. We are presently heading for government shutdown like the US because the government cannot agree with parliament, and no legislation is in place to make brexit work.

Corbyn was dragged kicking and screaming into the remain campaign (Project Fear mark 1) and, whatever his public utterances, is at heart just as much a Brexiteer as Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Funny you should say that. Johnson was visibly horrified the day after the referendum. He intended to lose. Rees Mogg said he would support the government even if Theresa May was doing handstands on the despatch box in the commons. The conservatives want to remain. The way they are doing this is by trying to show voters how ridiculous Brexit is.

 

[Adrian69702006]

Dandelion. As I don't know otherwise I have to take it your assertion that only 37% of the electorate voted in the referendum to be correct. Assuming that's correct, we can still only count the votes of those who actually voted. We cannot try to second guess how the 63% you say didn't vote would have voted and it would be foolhardy to try. Their abstension therefore counts for nothing.

A Government which held a referendum and then ignored the result would be grossly negligent and contemptuous of the voters who put it in office. Ignoring the result would only be practical policy for a Government which had suicidal tendencies and wanted to be removed from office whenever a General Election was next held.

Instead of thinking of blocking a peerage for the Speaker, Mrs May should see to it that he is ennobled as soon as possible - not as a reward for services rendered or long standing convention - but so that despatched to the House of Peers he could no longer inflict damaging decisions on the Commons.

We did very well without the EU before we joined it and I'm sure the fifth wealthiest economy in the world isn't so feeble that it couldn't do again.

 

[Jason]

Dandelion. As I don't know otherwise I have to take it your assertion that only 37% of the electorate voted in the referendum to be correct.

The referendum turnout was 72.2%. This is very high by UK standards.

Of those who voted, 52% vote to leave. The Dandy logic is that all non-voters backed Remain.

 

[dandelion]

The Dandy logic is that all non-voters backed Remain.

I saod precisely what I meant. 63% (approx, I didnt check the precise number) did not vote to leave.

About half voted remain, the others did not vote. I generally assume people who do not vote expect the government will sort things out so it all works. There is no sign whatever that the government will sort it out so it all works. The goals promised for Brexit are unattainable, because different people promised contradictory things. Quite aside from that, the goals one by one will not be met.

So... whoever implements brexit will have 2/3 of voters angry with them because they are remainers or uncommitted and the government messed up. The leavers have also been promised unicorns and cake which will not arrive, so they wont be happy. Maybe 1/3 of leavers are ideological and might be happy because we have left. So that ends up with about 10% of voters happy post Brexit.

The conservatives total aim in all this is to blame someone else.

 

[Jason]

I saod precisely what I meant. 63% (approx, I didnt check the precise number) did not vote to leave.

Yes I know you mean it. It is still wrong. In any vote on anything there are people who don't vote. Conventionally there are two ways of dealing with these:
1) Just take them out of the count, which is what the law does. Some assume that the vote would fall in the same way as those who actually voted.
2) By not voting they have implicitly given their support to the winners. They have said they don't know, or can't be bothered to vote, or don't care.

The Dandy approach has no pedigree. I am aware that some remoaners are putting it forward. The primary problem with it is that in almost every election it gives the opposite outcome to the real outcome.

 

[dandelion]

The Dandy approach has no pedigree.

Not at all. In some countries voting is compulsory.

The primary problem with it is that in almost every election it gives the opposite outcome to the real outcome.

That is because we usually get dictatorship by a minority. Maybe 1/4 of the people vote for a government, and polling suggests maybe half of them dont really support it, but thought it was better than the other lot - although they still didnt agree with its policies. Its a stitchup.

Right now the politicians are at it again. They fear what voters might say so are refusing to allow a final peoples vote on whether to accept a leave deal or to remain.

 

[Adrian69702006]

Not at all. In some countries voting is compulsory.

That is because we usually get dictatorship by a minority. Maybe 1/4 of the people vote for a government, and polling suggests maybe half of them dont really support it, but thought it was better than the other lot - although they still didnt agree with its policies. Its a stitchup.

Right now the politicians are at it again. They fear what voters might say so are refusing to allow a final peoples vote on whether to accept a leave deal or to remain.

Dandelion. I've no root and branch objection to a people's vote. However, my understanding is that such a vote could not be organised before March 29th, thereby rendering it an academic exercise unless Article 50 is rescinded before then which I very much doubt. Also it's not forced to produce the result the remoaners seem to hope it might. Possibly more could well vote leave than before. If that were the case, would the whole thing prove entirely pointless?

 

[Jason]

Dandelion. I've no root and branch objection to a people's vote. However, my understanding is that such a vote could not be organised before March 29th, thereby rendering it an academic exercise unless Article 50 is rescinded before then which I very much doubt. Also it's not forced to produce the result the remoaners seem to hope it might. Possibly more could well vote leave than before. If that were the case, would the whole thing prove entirely pointless?

It would take about a year to get the legislation through parliament. A straightforward law can go through in about six months. This isn't straightforward and there would be legal challenges, so a year is a reasonable guide. There's then a campaign period.

There's a real problem that the question put can go a long way to determining the outcome. There are enormous problems with multi-option questions. (Does anywhere do a referendum on a multi option question?) There could be legal challenges to the outcome. It's unlikely other things will stand still for example May's deal might not still be on offer.

There's also the problem that the date for the end of the Brexit transition period is 31st December 2020, and this isn't extended even if the Brexit day is delayed. Right now we have Brexit 29th March 2019 and transition up to 31st December 2020. A delay to Brexit leads to a very short transition. Think of legislation for a new referendum through say January 2020, then a campaign period leading to a referendum April 2020, with implementation and transition to be fitted into eight months. I suppose it is possible but it is tight.

We could also have crazy outcomes. Say there is a referendum and Remain win. There is a legal challenge (and there will be a challenge to either outcome) which leads to a court decision around September upholding the challenge. We then have a legal system which implements what was a cancelled Brexit.

I think a second referendum is wrong on so many grounds. It is not practical, but also it can throw up constitutional craziness.

 

[Jason]

Not at all. In some countries voting is compulsory.

Indeed, and there are arguments for and against.

Compulsory voting tends to increase support for parties on the political extremes, and tends to increase votes for iconoclastic positions (often left wing). In the context of Brexit, compulsory voting would presumably have increased the Leave vote.

What I'm an contesting is the idea that everyone who doesn't vote can automatically be regarded as supporting the losing side. This would change the outcome of almost every election.

 

[dandelion]

Dandelion. I've no root and branch objection to a people's vote. However, my understanding is that such a vote could not be organised before March 29th,

Of course it could. The established procedure might not allow this, but parliament can do anything it likes, if it chooses to. This is an excuse on a par with dog ate homework.

...unless Article 50 is rescinded

The EU did say they would allow extra time for a refrendum anyway if necessary.

Also it's not forced to produce the result the remoaners seem to hope it might.

Which is pobably why the government doesnt want one.. its a risk.

Possibly more could well vote leave than before.

But clearly leave dont believe that either. What you can say is parliament doesnt want the people to decide after the mess they made last time.

So what we have is no majority for deal. no majority for no deal. no majority for referendum.

the logical step is at the last minute parliament cancels brexit becausewe cannot decide what to do. That is sold as a measure purely to delay, but the only available mechanism will be to withdraw article 50. Hey presto!

 

[Jason]

@dandelion parliament can change the law (in time) but it cannot break the law. That would be dictatorship.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion parliament can change the law (in time) but it cannot break the law. That would be dictatorship.

Paliament can make the law, make restropective law, pardon anyone for anything, use any means it wishes. Thats the Uk constitution. It is essentially the power of an absolute monarch. tranferred to a group of people chosen by themselves.

 

[dandelion]

P&O are moving regsitration of their ferries to cyprus away from the UK. P&O to change flag of UK ships to Cyprus ahead of Brexit | Reuters

Perhaps they are worried by the current government moves to take over ferries because of the Brexit emergency which is developing. Already the government has been bumping ordinary passengers off ships to make more room for freight. I suspect that means the ferries will lose money.

The stated reason is that it ishes to keep all its tax affairs inside the EU.

Dyson has announced that it is moving its corporate HQ and the place it pays tax to singapore. Funny this happened after the Brexit he campaigned for, which he said he needed to keep his base inside the UK. Seems to be having the opposite effect.Perhaps he thinks Uk taxes will have to soar to cover the impending emergency. Interestingly Singapore has recently made a trade deal with the EU, whereas the Uk is tearing up its own EU trade deal.

 

[dandelion]

Mirror article, arguing that Brexit has to be cancelled because the government cannot get the legislation necessaey to go through with it through parliament. Brexit has already been cancelled - and here's why they're not telling you

 

[dandelion]

Airbus says it will leaving the Uk if we get a no deal brexit.