Brexit

[Mechelle]

I would agree with virtually all your points, Humble Scribe, although I think "Saint Jeremy" is actually quietly enthusiastic rather than running scared of his own Brexit wing.

I forgot to mention in my reply to Eye of Horus that I saw the interview with Tom Bower (author of the hatchet job book on Corbyn, as well as an earlier, similar one on Prince Charles) and Corbyn supporting Jew Michael Segolev, although it was actually on ITV, not the BBC. While I am clearly, I hope,  not particularly a Corbyn fan, I felt a lot more sympathetic to him as Bower simply denied any evidence Segolev presented in contradiction to his claims, such as showing a screen shot of Corbyn on television at a time when Bower said he had slept in, before literally insulting him as a self-hating Jew. As Eye of Horus said, presenter Richard Madeley (regularly featured in compilations of embarrassing television moments)did not object at all.

Pre

[js207]

I get your points, Humble Scribe, but the bottom line (to me) seems to be that the referendum should not have been pledged to be decisive all by itself: it would have been better if it had been consultative - a way of opening up the debate on something politicians would normally have refused to discuss, and to give an idea of what the opinions among the people were like, and how strong they were. Especially because it was clear early on in the campaign that it could turn out with a fairly small margin.

Maybe I'm being Scandinavian here, but it sounds loopy to me to make a totally unconditional vow in advance that the result of a referendum in a complex question *must* be carried out, even if it turns out that it cannot be done without causing chaos, disruption and a long economic downturn - and also, that the margin between the two alternatives was just 2-3%. And it was plain, soon after the referendum, atht many of those who had voted Leave had not really understood what a hard Brexit would really mean in terms of economy, their own freedom to travel easily across Europe, trade deals and so on. That aspect of the whole issue had been shucked aside, because the referendum swung to be about immigration, muslims and about British (or really, English) identity.

Also, the whole thing had become too entangled in party tactics from the beginning. Even Cameron's decision to have the poll set up was out of a wish to neutralize a difficult set of questions in the party, difficult for him personally, and after the referendum it has continued to get embrolied in party tactics and internal party plotting. I frankly think it's a disgrace, even if I recognize there was some legitimate criticism of the way the EU works, on the Brexit side.

Yes, the problems all started with Cameron's bad faith approach - the sham "negotiation" beforehand, his refusal to allow any preparation for a Leave win in case that made it more plausible to swing voters, the fact he was only ever bluffing and never expected to be called on it - from the outset, he assumed the script would run "get token 'concession', win a Remain vote, end of debate", as happened two years earlier with the Scottish independence referendum.

I highlighted 'freedom of travel' there, because one of my many objections is that so many Remain voters (including my own brother!) seem to have confused 'freedom of movement' (the free movement of labour, i.e. the right to go and live/work in another country) with 'freedom of travel', which of course we still have just as Americans, Canadians and others do. (I travelled through France to Amsterdam and on to Scotland on a British with my then-girlfriend on her US one: we both went straight through every passport check in minutes without separating for a minute, except for re-entering the UK!)

If both sides had approached it in good faith, trying to come up with a joint plan for grandfathered immigration status and a finite transition period in which all the long-term trade deals could then be negotiated - with no customs union, because that effectively prohibits the UK making trade deals - things would look a lot "cleaner" now - but no. May was obsessed with cooking up a "close" deal with all sorts of bonds involved, so of course it all fell apart, leaving us caught between her unworkable mess or (almost) no deal at all, rushing to cobble together the essential bits of a transition deal in the final weeks instead of having spent two years building the foundations for it.

(To me, it's akin to having boarded the Titanic knowing what was ahead, but spending the entire voyage fussing about which frock to get rescued in and what kind of makeup suits it, up until the water reached the door, so now we're rushing to get the door off its hinges to float on, instead of having boarded a lifeboat when there was time. Crazy.)

[gaggedLouise]

Hello James! Long time no see! *waves* :)

I'm clear about the distinction between "travelling easily as a tourist" and the right of EU citizens (including Brits, so far) to move around, live and work around the EU", and it was the latter I was thinking of. I would say that a large number of people who voted Brexit didn't really understand how a hard or semi-hard Brexit would remove that option for them, or their children: the ability to work abroad, to study abroad without loads of paperwork, or to set up a second home in Spain or Italy. Still less did they understand how the flow of everyday goods could be affected by Britain bluntly exiting the customs union or the single market. Very few people would have taken the time, before they voted, to think through the issue of the Irish border and the risk of a new time of troubles; most people leaning towards Brexit would have just dismissed it as stupid fearmongering. People don't remember what the situation in Northern Ireland and nearby used to look like only thirty years ago. Or they would have said "but it was the IRA terrorists who caused all the trouble, so why are you meshing this stuff into our debate about Brexit!!?".

Another point I can't understand: how can everyone get so locked in their trenches about how there must be no "internal border" with Northern Ireland and miss out on the fact that the more mistrust they create in the UK, the more they will risk losing Scotland in the near future.

There was no real chance that those issues would get the place they deserved, if they were placed within a heated referendum campaign., Of course the immigration questions and some other issues raced to the top. Cameron and Clegg should have known that. They made a bad-faith gamble, thinking that the Brexit side would never win anyway, and were proven wrong: after the result was up, Cameron promptly headed for the...exit door, refusing to help cleaning up his own mess.  And after the poll was through, politicians have failed dismally to rise to the occasion, or even to try to see how this would look from beyond the Channel and what the EU was likely to do as the negotiations went along. I mean, like most Swedes I've always liked Britain, but I'm effing disgusted by this political collapse. 

[js207]

Nice to see you again Louise, it's been too long!

I suspect many Leave voters have no use for a right to go and live/work in another EEA country - it's something very few of us actually use, particularly "working class", so the "losing" that wasn't much of a loss for them. (Of course, my mother studied in Munich years before the UK joined the EEC, and people still manage to go and study in the US despite the US not having joined the EU...) On the other hand, even now I see Remain voters wailing about merely visiting France or Spain, as if that will suddenly become impossible for them.

Scotland's situation is an interesting dilemma of its own. On one side: look at the mess trying to extricate the UK from 46 year membership of a trading bloc, and the Irish border, then ask how extricating Scotland from Britain would look? A lot of voters could still remember the days before the UK joined the EEC, but literally nobody alive remembers Scotland before Union! (Which may partly explain the lack of movement in Scottish opinion polls lately: a lot of people - including me - expected the 2016 vote to be a big boost to the 'Yes' side which lost in 2014, but that hasn't happened so far.)

To be fair to Clegg, though, he was out of power in 2015, before the referendum campaign started: the gamble was all Cameron's doing. Apart from that you're spot on: he was overconfident, obstinate, and as soon as it backfired he just ran away to leave others to work it out. In the long term, I think the UK needs a substantial change in the whole political system: scrap the House of Lords, reform the party system, make the Commons more representative and accountable to the electorate ... no idea how to do most of that, though, and I probably won't be able to vote in it anyway by the time it happens. (Leaving the UK sometime this year, so no more UK voting rights for me in 2034 unless the law changes.)

[gaggedLouise]

Nice to see you again Louise, it's been too long!

I suspect many Leave voters have no use for a right to go and live/work in another EEA country - it's something very few of us actually use, particularly "working class", so the "losing" that wasn't much of a loss for them. (Of course, my mother studied in Munich years before the UK joined the EEC, and people still manage to go and study in the US despite the US not having joined the EU...) On the other hand, even now I see Remain voters wailing about merely visiting France or Spain, as if that will suddenly become impossible for them.

It's true that going abroad to study or work long-term (and still more setting up a summer or old-age residence in Spain) are things that would look out of reach to many people whp voted Leave. On the other hand though, the Leave side was supported by some high-level businessmen and financiers whose businesses do depend a bit on people's ability to move back and forth over the channel between different work positions. Some of those people seem to have taken for granted that after a few hiccups, everything would work out smoothly and the UK would be able to have the flow it wanted, but stop all the immigration they did *not* want, and that was an illusion.

To be fair to Clegg, though, he was out of power in 2015, before the referendum campaign started: the gamble was all Cameron's doing. Apart from that you're spot on: he was overconfident, obstinate, and as soon as it backfired he just ran away to leave others to work it out. In the long term, I think the UK needs a substantial change in the whole political system: scrap the House of Lords, reform the party system, make the Commons more representative and accountable to the electorate ... no idea how to do most of that, though, and I probably won't be able to vote in it anyway by the time it happens. (Leaving the UK sometime this year, so no more UK voting rights for me in 2034 unless the law changes.)

Yeah, I was thinking afterwards that I should have cut the mention of Clegg, but these days you can't edit your posts on this subforum. I agree that the Brexit circus has highlighted the need for some real reforms to the UK political system - and ultimately the need for a real, written and codified constitution. One reason for the mess between the cabinet, parliament and people fighting one another is the absence of a constitution that might make the limits of political competence and ways of decision-making clearer and more definite.

[js207]

On the other hand though, the Leave side was supported by some high-level businessmen and financiers whose businesses do depend a bit on people's ability to move back and forth over the channel between different work positions. Some of those people seem to have taken for granted that after a few hiccups, everything would work out smoothly and the UK would be able to have the flow it wanted, but stop all the immigration they did *not* want, and that was an illusion.

Yeah, I was thinking afterwards that I should have cut the mention of Clegg, but these days you can't edit your posts on this subforum. I agree that the Brexit circus has highlighted the need for some real reforms to the UK political system - and ultimately the need for a real, written and codified constitution. One reason for the mess between the cabinet, parliament and people fighting one another is the absence of a constitution that might make the limits of political competence and ways of decision-making clearer and more definite.

No, I suspect the pro-Brexit group have no use for worker mobility - when they travel to the EU, even for business purposes, it doesn't count as "working there" for immigration laws, and they're on high enough salaries to qualify easily for an EU 'blue card' or local equivalent if they actually wanted to move jobs. In other fields, like delivery drivers, there's a very real impact.

The UK introduced a system of public petitions a few years ago, but it's largely a case of the public saying "we want X" and the government replying "no" - still far short of the Swiss ideal where the public actually get a say in things. As a democrat, I believe that if the public wants X and the government wants Y, it should be X that happens not Y: if the government can't convince the public of the merits of a course of action, it shouldn't happen. Ironically, a position Clegg's lot would generally have supported!

[Eye of Horus]

after the result was up, Cameron promptly headed for the...exit door, refusing to help cleaning up his own mess. 

On the one hand, it was pretty insulting for Cameron to lose his reckless gamble and then disappear to live the high life giving six-figure speeches to business. On the other, when something a prime minister stakes their reputation on goes down in flames, it is traditionally considered the honourable thing to resign. *Stares at Theresa May*

I agree that the Brexit circus has highlighted the need for some real reforms to the UK political system - and ultimately the need for a real, written and codified constitution. One reason for the mess between the cabinet, parliament and people fighting one another is the absence of a constitution that might make the limits of political competence and ways of decision-making clearer and more definite.

No argument from me. Unfortunately, Brexit or not, we are highly unlikely to see even the beginnings of that change while the Conservative party remains in power.

Scotland's situation is an interesting dilemma of its own. On one side: look at the mess trying to extricate the UK from 46 year membership of a trading bloc, and the Irish border, then ask how extricating Scotland from Britain would look? A lot of voters could still remember the days before the UK joined the EEC, but literally nobody alive remembers Scotland before Union! (Which may partly explain the lack of movement in Scottish opinion polls lately: a lot of people - including me - expected the 2016 vote to be a big boost to the 'Yes' side which lost in 2014, but that hasn't happened so far.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a Scottish Independence thread crop up around here in the coming months.

[TheGlyphstone]

Would forming a new government/appointing a new PM in the middle of this Charlie Foxtrot actually help, or just make the situation even worse?

[gaggedLouise]

Would forming a new government/appointing a new PM in the middle of this Charlie Foxtrot actually help, or just make the situation even worse?

Hard to say - to follow up on Js's stinging simile with the Titanic before, it feels like changing to a new captain on board the Titanic half an hour after she has struck the iceberg.

At the very least, they'd need some delay time from the EU so that the UK doesn't crash out in a month practically without a prime minister... There's been efforts lately to get that fixed, but the problems around a Brexit delay are a whole story unto itself.

[TheGlyphstone]

Just questioning whether May breaking tradition here, as Horus mentioned, is actually the smarter (or rather, less dumb/bad) option for the country, whatever it costs her in terms of reputation.

[Mechelle]

In an interesting and surprising new development, Jeremy Corbyn has just announced that Labour would support a second referendum, with some caveats.
I think that is going against his own instincts, but an attempt to shore up his own leadership amid rumours that other MPs will leave his party, to accompany those who left last week.

[gaggedLouise]

In an interesting and surprising new development, Jeremy Corbyn has just announced that Labour would support a second referendum, with some caveats.
I think that is going against his own instincts, but an attempt to shore up his own leadership amid rumours that other MPs will leave his party, to accompany those who left last week.

Moderately good news, but to stage a meaningful new referendum (which should include the option of remaining in the EU and stalling the Brexit process) they would need some delay time, wouldn't they? No way a serious referendum could be set up in two weeks time.

[Eye of Horus]

Yes, I just read that too. A pretty huge development, although such an amendment is unlikely to pass without a significant Tory rebellion. If it did though, I’d be interested to know what options Labour would advocate to go on the ballot.

Would forming a new government/appointing a new PM in the middle of this Charlie Foxtrot actually help, or just make the situation even worse?

The EU have said they would only back a pause / reopening of the Brexit negotiations if there was a substantial democratic change such as a People’s Vote or a change of government. May resigning would lead to a new (likely hard-Brexit) leader for the Tories. I have to say I really don’t like the idea of Johnson, Gove or Rees-Mogg running the country.

The new leader may call a general election - or they may not, which would be an affront to democracy, but Tory turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and it wouldn’t be too hard for them to avoid one since 2/3 of MPs must approve an early election. But parliament would still be paralysed as there’s no majority behind the No Deal that the hard-Brexit leader would want.

In the less likely event that there were a general election, the Tories would likely lose more seats, and a new, likely Labour-led government, would get an extension from the EU to continue talks.

Just questioning whether May breaking tradition here, as Horus mentioned, is actually the smarter (or rather, less dumb/bad) option for the country, whatever it costs her in terms of reputation.

It’s rather like Trump in the US - getting rid of her would leave someone even worse in the top spot, but that doesn’t mean she still shouldn’t go. It’s a case of fighting one battle at a time.

[HairyHeretic]

I have to say I really don’t like the idea of Johnson, Gove or Rees-Mogg running the country.

Do you honestly think any of them want Mays job at this point in time?

[js207]

The new leader may call a general election - or they may not, which would be an affront to democracy, but Tory turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and it wouldn’t be too hard for them to avoid one since 2/3 of MPs must approve an early election. But parliament would still be paralysed as there’s no majority behind the No Deal that the hard-Brexit leader would want.

Legally, 'no deal' is the only option which doesn't need a majority to happen: if nothing changes between now and then, it automatically happens on March 29th. If the UK and EU27 agree to an extension, it happens at the end of that extension instead. Unless they either approve a deal of some sort or agree to revoke A50 entirely, it happens without any vote needed. (The manoeuvring to "block" it amounts to attempts to force May to request an extension: if they succeed, and she does make the request, and the EU27 all agree, it would delay 'no deal', presumably in hopes of getting a deal or enough public support to revoke A50 entirely.)

Bizarrely, some people seem to think "no deal" means the UK stays in the EU as before, rather than leaving; others seem to think no deal can only happen if Parliament approves it - of course, you can't "block" the absence of a deal, any more than you can destroy a hole or delete empty space: unless and until you fill that gap in with something, it's still there.

Corbyn's U-turn on this is a surprising development, but may or may not actually lead to another vote - he certainly doesn't have enough MPs to trigger that himself, and I doubt he'd win over enough Tories to get it through any time soon. We've had a lot of surprises already, though, so maybe he'll deliver another...

[Mechelle]

The other thing is that Corbyn needs to carry the rest of the Labour Party with him, irrespective of any Tory rebels. According to Lucy Powell MP, 25 Labour MPs would not vote in favour of a second referendum

Meanwhile, Theresa May is supposedly prepared to rule out a "No Deal". I too have heard that some people have thought that means we remain and carry on as we are.

[gaggedLouise]

The other thing is that Corbyn needs to carry the rest of the Labour Party with him, irrespective of any Tory rebels. According to Lucy Powell MP, 25 Labour MPs would not vote in favour of a second referendum

Meanwhile, Theresa May is supposedly prepared to rule out a "No Deal". I too have heard that some people have thought that means we remain and carry on as we are.

Donald Tusk calling 10 Downing Street around March 22. Mrs May takes the call:

"Hello, it's the prime minister speaking. Oh, hi, Don! What's up, Don?"
"Hello Tessa! I was watching the news and it looks like your backing in the House is dissolving by the day, Tell me, if you'd have to go, can you assure me that there will be anyone here, I mean in your seat, by the end of March? Someone who has been briefed and is ready to play ball with us?"
(brief pause by May) "I..erm...N-no, I guess that's not something I can assure you of."
(brief pause by Tusk) "Well, if you cannot guarantee us that, then we won't be able to let the UK really leave by March 27, would we? We can't have anarchy at one end on such a crucial day, you see?"
"Yes, I guess so."

[js207]

(brief pause by Tusk) "Well, if you cannot guarantee us that, then we won't be able to let the UK really leave by March 27, would we? We can't have anarchy at one end on such a crucial day, you see?"
"Yes, I guess so."

A funny mental image, certainly! Of course, neither Tusk nor May has the authority to stop the UK leaving, or even to delay it - both require Parliament's approval first, and a delay requires every single other EU member state to agree as well. If Slovenia are still upset about that comment about being Soviet vassals ... no extension, out we go.

[gaggedLouise]

A funny mental image, certainly! Of course, neither Tusk nor May has the authority to stop the UK leaving, or even to delay it - both require Parliament's approval first, and a delay requires every single other EU member state to agree as well. If Slovenia are still upset about that comment about being Soviet vassals ... no extension, out we go.

More trouble every day, as Frank Zappa once put it.

Also, it's quite clear who in that convo is the stronger one, the one calling the shots. :)

[Eye of Horus]

Do you honestly think any of them want Mays job at this point in time?

No. Which is the main reason she’s still being permitted to haunt Number 10. As soon as Brexit is resolved, however, she will lose her usefulness as a scapegoat - the papers have already reported some in her party demanding that she step down before the local elections this summer.

Legally, 'no deal' is the only option which doesn't need a majority to happen: if nothing changes between now and then, it automatically happens on March 29th. If the UK and EU27 agree to an extension, it happens at the end of that extension instead. Unless they either approve a deal of some sort or agree to revoke A50 entirely, it happens without any vote needed.

True. There has actually already been a vote passed to take No Deal off the table, but because it was non-binding May (and the media) chose to ignore it in favour of the (also non-binding) “alternative arrangements” vote that passed the same day. If the vote were to be repeated as a binding one, it would be a de-facto mandate to ask for an extension. Although of course the EU would have to approve it.

[js207]

True. There has actually already been a vote passed to take No Deal off the table, but because it was non-binding May (and the media) chose to ignore it in favour of the (also non-binding) “alternative arrangements” vote that passed the same day. If the vote were to be repeated as a binding one, it would be a de-facto mandate to ask for an extension. Although of course the EU would have to approve it.

An extension or revocation would both appear to require an Act of Parliament, not just a motion, 'binding' or otherwise - and if it has any cost implications, Parliamentary rules say that such an Act can only be instigated as a Bill by a Minister, not an ordinary MP - making it very, very unlikely to get through without May and her Cabinet wanting it to. As it stands, we have an Act in force which requires us to leave on the 29th, and Parliament can only change that by passing another Act.

[Eye of Horus]

Ah, okay I see now.

So while Parliament can (and has been) making its opposition clear, avoiding No Deal is contingent on May listening to them and not being irrationally stubborn and uncooperative. That’s...worrying.

On the other hand, she has offered today to hold a No Deal / Extension vote if her agreement fails again. I would guess that this is intended to prevent imminent ministerial resignations and / or to threaten the ERG into backing her deal.

What May would then have to do for the EU to accept an extension request, I don’t know. Change her red lines? Offer a People’s Vote? Call an election? Resign?

[Mechelle]

Ah, okay I see now.

So while Parliament can (and has been) making its opposition clear, avoiding No Deal is contingent on May listening to them and not being irrationally stubborn and uncooperative. That’s...worrying.

On the other hand, she has offered today to hold a No Deal / Extension vote if her agreement fails again. I would guess that this is intended to prevent imminent ministerial resignations and / or to threaten the ERG into backing her deal.

What May would then have to do for the EU to accept an extension request, I don’t know. Change her red lines? Offer a People’s Vote? Call an election? Resign?

I think she has done very well today, considering the situation she was in (much of her own making of course).

First, on March 12th we have the vote on her deal. It would  not be expected to get through, based on past results, but the ERG types might vote for it, along with some Labour rebels, as the lesser of two evils, based on the vote which would come next.
That vote, the following day, would be to exit with no deal. I really can't see the House of Commons voting for this, and the ERG know this, considering the earlier non-meaningful vote against this.
Then, another day later, we have the vote to delay Brexit. The other EU countries have to agree to this, as has been said, but it is in their interests to do so as a Brexit, especially a hard Brexit, would affect them, as the Brexiteers keep telling us. In her shoes, I would go hard on any of the members of her party, who try to lobby a foreign state to prevent this, conspiring against the interests of the United Kingdom, although I don't suppose she will.

Of course, this all pushes any ultimate decision further down the line, but that has been the whole pattern of Theresa May's premiership, regardless of any statements she may make.

[gaggedLouise]

Ah, okay I see now.

So while Parliament can (and has been) making its opposition clear, avoiding No Deal is contingent on May listening to them and not being irrationally stubborn and uncooperative. That’s...worrying.

On the other hand, she has offered today to hold a No Deal / Extension vote if her agreement fails again. I would guess that this is intended to prevent imminent ministerial resignations and / or to threaten the ERG into backing her deal.

What May would then have to do for the EU to accept an extension request, I don’t know. Change her red lines? Offer a People’s Vote? Call an election? Resign?

The most they can get May to help with (after those votes in mid-March, should they take place) is trying to wrangle out an extension of a few months. Getting the EU27 on board for that shouldn't be super difficult, I think: no one on the continental side wants Britain to crash out on March 27 with no deal at all. They'd prefer to see a deal, even if it takes a few months more.

After May has got the extension though (if we assume she takes it down that path) she would have to be ousted if there is to be any real change of direction. Mrs May won't ever help with setting up a second referendum or with any major rethinking on Brexit, so to get any further she and her cabinet would have to leave and there would have to be either a new election or a Labour-led government taking over straight, without an election, and a decision on a second referendum from them.

[js207]

The most they can get May to help with (after those votes in mid-March, should they take place) is trying to wrangle out an extension of a few months. Getting the EU27 on board for that shouldn't be super difficult, I think: no one on the continental side wants Britain to crash out on March 27 with no deal at all. They'd prefer to see a deal, even if it takes a few months more.

After May has got the extension though (if we assume she takes it down that path) she would have to be ousted if there is to be any real change of direction. Mrs May won't ever help with setting up a second referendum or with any major rethinking on Brexit, so to get any further she and her cabinet would have to leave and there would have to be either a new election or a Labour-led government taking over straight, without an election, and a decision on a second referendum from them.

Barring a new election, Labour taking over would require them getting either Conservative or DUP support - neither very likely.

A three month extension allowing a better-prepared "no deal" (which is a terrible misnomer already, since there are some deals in place already for that scenario, including with the EU itself as well as more sensible entities like Switzerland and the other EFTA members) is probably the best scenario to hope for at this point, short of a miraculous change of heart leading to a changed WA that can be accepted.