Brexit thread III

1679111269

Comments

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Any version of Leave means pain for the country. Experts are agreed on that. It is what level of pain and how long a recovery period the new PM is prepared to put us through.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Does the failure of this no-no-deal bill mean it's all over? Have the not-so-happy-with-Brexit-but-too-timid-to-be-very-loud-about-it Tory MPs rolled over? Or are they just waiting to see who the new PM is before they consider rebelling again as they did in the Parliamentary takeover bill that succeeded earlier?
  • Yes um no um maybe.

    This was a missed opportunity. There will be others but the window is now very small. With the summer recess ahead, there is very little parliamentary time left before October 31st.

    The irony is that it might come down to the only way of stopping No Deal might be to bring the government down. Whether enough MPs are prepared to do that or not is an open question. Dominic Grieve clearly stated he was. No doubt there are others but enough? That is the question.

    The vote yesterday really worries me: in order to get No Deal, an incoming PM merely has to do nothing.

    AFZ
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Boris says he will unite the country. Well if he gets in and we Brexit as he has promised he will divide the country and could lose the next GE. That of course goes for all the possible candidates. He seems to think he is liked by everyone. He has a surprise coming.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Boris says he will unite the country. Well if he gets in and we Brexit as he has promised he will divide the country and could lose the next GE. That of course goes for all the possible candidates. He seems to think he is liked by everyone. He has a surprise coming.

    Thatcher said much the same thing.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yes and she was roundly hated by many people.
  • I thought that Tories have always pretended to be for all people, and for unity, blah blah, while helping the rich, and fuck the poor. Nobody actually believes it, do they? We're all in this together, as the millionaires like to say.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Yes that is true: However there is something almost messianic about Boris’ approach. Boris here to save the country. Step aside Treeza, step aside parliament, step aside You Majesty Boris is here to make things right.
  • John Crace has an amusing column, where he points out that Johnson's press conference was very dull, deliberately so.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Yes that is true: However there is something almost messianic about Boris’ approach. Boris here to save the country. Step aside Treeza, step aside parliament, step aside You Majesty Boris is here to make things right.

    I think - as I said elsewhere that Johnson is trying to deliberately emulate the Trump strategy, but on purpose and from the top down, rather than somewhat accidentally and by virtue of riding a grassroots movement.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 13
    Hugal wrote: »
    Yes that is true: However there is something almost messianic about Boris’ approach. Boris here to save the country. Step aside Treeza, step aside parliament, step aside Your Majesty Boris is here to make things right.

    Which stinks a lot like trumpism stinks.

    x posted with @chrisstiles - same thought.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    I don't think the fact that the consequences of a vote are different from what people expected is a reason to declare the vote invalid. Plenty of people who voted Lib-Dem in 2010 ended up with something very different from what they expected, but that doesn't make the 2010 election invalid.

    Ultimately, though, this is very academic, because if there is a majority in Parliament for revoking A50 without a vote, then there should also be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum, which would be much less problematic. I don't think you'd ever get a situation where the Parliamentary maths allows a revoke but not any other outcome.
  • You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    I don't think the fact that the consequences of a vote are different from what people expected is a reason to declare the vote invalid. Plenty of people who voted Lib-Dem in 2010 ended up with something very different from what they expected, but that doesn't make the 2010 election invalid.

    Ultimately, though, this is very academic, because if there is a majority in Parliament for revoking A50 without a vote, then there should also be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum, which would be much less problematic. I don't think you'd ever get a situation where the Parliamentary maths allows a revoke but not any other outcome.

    No, you're missing the point here. Your argument is that if the choice is Remain or No Deal then we have to take No Deal because that's closest to what people voted for (please correct me if I have this wrong).

    I disagree: any serious analysis shows that there is a much bigger mandate for No Brexit than No Deal.

    What @Arethosemyfeet said.

    AFZ
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The decision to Brexit was not taken by the people. It was taken by government. Any sensible government would have seen how close the result was and taken note. Treeza just took note of the leavers in her party. That is the reason we are in this mess
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    edited June 14
    Hugal wrote: »
    Boris says he will unite the country.

    Oh, I think he will - but not in the way he expects. Unlike Theresa, though, he will resign "on principle" when he finally notices that everyone thinks he's the worst PM since... well, since Theresa. Judging by his performance as Foreign Secretary, this means he will stay in office just long enough to trash the economy and destroy whatever shreds are left of our international reputation.

    [edited to remove scream of anguish more suited to the thread in Hell]

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited June 14
    Jane R wrote: »
    he will resign "on principle" when he finally notices that everyone thinks he's the worst PM since... well, since Theresa.
    I may turn out to be wrong but I think this is unduly harsh on Theresa May. At the moment May may be a contender for worst Prime Minister in my lifetime, but I expect that if any of the leading candidates are elected it will change.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Jane R wrote: »
    he will resign "on principle" when he finally notices that everyone thinks he's the worst PM since... well, since Theresa.
    I may turn out to be wrong but I think this is unduly harsh on Theresa May. At the moment May may be a contender for worst Prime Minister in my lifetime, but I expect that if any of the leading candidates are elected it will change.

    Indeed - from Next PM Thread.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    I don't think the fact that the consequences of a vote are different from what people expected is a reason to declare the vote invalid. Plenty of people who voted Lib-Dem in 2010 ended up with something very different from what they expected, but that doesn't make the 2010 election invalid.

    Ultimately, though, this is very academic, because if there is a majority in Parliament for revoking A50 without a vote, then there should also be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum, which would be much less problematic. I don't think you'd ever get a situation where the Parliamentary maths allows a revoke but not any other outcome.

    No, you're missing the point here. Your argument is that if the choice is Remain or No Deal then we have to take No Deal because that's closest to what people voted for (please correct me if I have this wrong).

    I disagree: any serious analysis shows that there is a much bigger mandate for No Brexit than No Deal.

    What @Arethosemyfeet said.

    AFZ

    The vote was for an action (leave or remain), not for an outcome. One can reasonably argue that it ought to have been for an outcome, but it wasn't.

    (It's worth noting that this argument cuts both ways - people who argue that a customs union isn't honouring the referendum are talking bollocks for the same reason - if they wanted Brexit to specifically mean leaving the customs union then they should have made sure that's what the ballot paper said.)

    I think it's dangerous to say 'people voted for x over y, but what they really wanted is closer to y' - even if it seems the pragmatically right thing to do and even if you have good evidence for what they really wanted. A lot of people voted for Labour while wanting things that are closer to the Lib-Dem manifesto, but that isn't a reason for the Electoral Commission to start re-allocating seats in Parliament.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited June 14
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    Except time would be too short to pass the necessary legislation, that's why I specified that time. Plus, why would MPs choose the deal they all hate over revoking article 50?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    I've been arguing for this ever since the Withdrawal Agreement was reached.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    I don't think the fact that the consequences of a vote are different from what people expected is a reason to declare the vote invalid. Plenty of people who voted Lib-Dem in 2010 ended up with something very different from what they expected, but that doesn't make the 2010 election invalid.

    Ultimately, though, this is very academic, because if there is a majority in Parliament for revoking A50 without a vote, then there should also be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum, which would be much less problematic. I don't think you'd ever get a situation where the Parliamentary maths allows a revoke but not any other outcome.

    No, you're missing the point here. Your argument is that if the choice is Remain or No Deal then we have to take No Deal because that's closest to what people voted for (please correct me if I have this wrong).

    I disagree: any serious analysis shows that there is a much bigger mandate for No Brexit than No Deal.

    What @Arethosemyfeet said.

    AFZ

    The vote was for an action (leave or remain), not for an outcome. One can reasonably argue that it ought to have been for an outcome, but it wasn't.

    (It's worth noting that this argument cuts both ways - people who argue that a customs union isn't honouring the referendum are talking bollocks for the same reason - if they wanted Brexit to specifically mean leaving the customs union then they should have made sure that's what the ballot paper said.)

    I think it's dangerous to say 'people voted for x over y, but what they really wanted is closer to y' - even if it seems the pragmatically right thing to do and even if you have good evidence for what they really wanted. A lot of people voted for Labour while wanting things that are closer to the Lib-Dem manifesto, but that isn't a reason for the Electoral Commission to start re-allocating seats in Parliament.

    No, that doesn't follow in this way. There is a distinct lack of clarity in the referendum. I think we can all agree about how deeply flawed the whole thing was from beginning to end. But that's still not the point.

    Almost no one voted for No Deal. There's no logical way from the CLEAR Leave campaigns' positions which talked constantly of various deals* to 'we can't get a deal so we must leave without one' thus there is no weight to the argument that 'we have to leave at any cost.' The moral imperative from this vote is very weak (in the absence of a deal)** and easily and overwhelmingly outweighed by the moral obligation on government not to do something so massively damaging.

    It's a bit like getting on a plane to fly to Spain - having paid the airline to go to Spain, afterall, it's hot and sunny. Just before they close the doors, the pilot announces that the plane is going to Siberia. You're saying that if we can't persuade the pilot to go to Spain (or at least Portugal. Ok, fine, I'll accept Jersey) then we still can't get off the plane because we bought a ticket to get our of England and Siberia might not be Spain but it's definitely not England.

    AFZ

    *that Leavers promised multiple, mutually incompatible and often impossible 'deals' is a separate issue.

    **I would argue that even then but again, that's not the point.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    Except time would be too short to pass the necessary legislation, that's why I specified that time. Plus, why would MPs choose the deal they all hate over revoking article 50?

    On point 2, there is even less support for revoking A50 without a referendum than there is for the withdrawal agreement. I think very, very few MPs are publicly advocating a revoke without a second referendum.

    On point 1, one would hope that 11:30pm wouldn't just happen unexpectedly. At some point earlier, there would have been a three-way choice inasmuch as the only things there remained enough time for would be the WA, revoke, or no-deal. If MPs have gone past that deadline, then they must have decided that both a revoke and no-deal are preferable to the WA.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    A rose by any other name...

    Leaving with a deal and leaving without a deal are fundamentally different things. Just because they both involve the word 'leaving' does not mean they actually have much in common.

    The argument that 'we have to do this because it's what people voted for' only has validity if it's what people actually voted for.

    I don't think the fact that the consequences of a vote are different from what people expected is a reason to declare the vote invalid. Plenty of people who voted Lib-Dem in 2010 ended up with something very different from what they expected, but that doesn't make the 2010 election invalid.

    Ultimately, though, this is very academic, because if there is a majority in Parliament for revoking A50 without a vote, then there should also be a majority in Parliament for a second referendum, which would be much less problematic. I don't think you'd ever get a situation where the Parliamentary maths allows a revoke but not any other outcome.

    No, you're missing the point here. Your argument is that if the choice is Remain or No Deal then we have to take No Deal because that's closest to what people voted for (please correct me if I have this wrong).

    I disagree: any serious analysis shows that there is a much bigger mandate for No Brexit than No Deal.

    What @Arethosemyfeet said.

    AFZ

    The vote was for an action (leave or remain), not for an outcome. One can reasonably argue that it ought to have been for an outcome, but it wasn't.

    (It's worth noting that this argument cuts both ways - people who argue that a customs union isn't honouring the referendum are talking bollocks for the same reason - if they wanted Brexit to specifically mean leaving the customs union then they should have made sure that's what the ballot paper said.)

    I think it's dangerous to say 'people voted for x over y, but what they really wanted is closer to y' - even if it seems the pragmatically right thing to do and even if you have good evidence for what they really wanted. A lot of people voted for Labour while wanting things that are closer to the Lib-Dem manifesto, but that isn't a reason for the Electoral Commission to start re-allocating seats in Parliament.

    No, that doesn't follow in this way. There is a distinct lack of clarity in the referendum. I think we can all agree about how deeply flawed the whole thing was from beginning to end. But that's still not the point.

    Almost no one voted for No Deal. There's no logical way from the CLEAR Leave campaigns' positions which talked constantly of various deals* to 'we can't get a deal so we must leave without one' thus there is no weight to the argument that 'we have to leave at any cost.' The moral imperative from this vote is very weak (in the absence of a deal)** and easily and overwhelmingly outweighed by the moral obligation on government not to do something so massively damaging.

    It's a bit like getting on a plane to fly to Spain - having paid the airline to go to Spain, afterall, it's hot and sunny. Just before they close the doors, the pilot announces that the plane is going to Siberia. You're saying that if we can't persuade the pilot to go to Spain (or at least Portugal. Ok, fine, I'll accept Jersey) then we still can't get off the plane because we bought a ticket to get our of England and Siberia might not be Spain but it's definitely not England.

    AFZ

    *that Leavers promised multiple, mutually incompatible and often impossible 'deals' is a separate issue.

    **I would argue that even then but again, that's not the point.

    I think your position depends on the idea that the referendum was offered by the Leave campaign. It was not, it was offered by the Government and by the Electoral Commission.

    In your analogy, if all it says on your ticket is 'Out of England', and the terms and conditions of the website through which you bought the ticket don't give any indication of the final destination, and the reason why you think it's going to Spain is because all your mates were saying 'Do this, it's great, we'll end up in Spain' - then you have a right to feel pissed off at your mates, but you don't really have a claim against the ticket-seller.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    On point 1, one would hope that 11:30pm wouldn't just happen unexpectedly. At some point earlier, there would have been a three-way choice inasmuch as the only things there remained enough time for would be the WA, revoke, or no-deal. If MPs have gone past that deadline, then they must have decided that both a revoke and no-deal are preferable to the WA.
    By "11:30", just leaving would also be impossible, as there wouldn't be time to sort out everything that would need to be in place. Would the necessary time to transfer EU law to the UK statute book have been used? Would the work necessary to register non-UK EU citizens resident in the UK so that necessary visas could be issued? Would someone have worked out what quotas UK fishermen would have, and arranged rights for them to access locations outwith UK territorial waters? Would we know whether people who have booked holidays in the south of France in November will need to sort out a visa?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    In your analogy, if all it says on your ticket is 'Out of England', and the terms and conditions of the website through which you bought the ticket don't give any indication of the final destination, and the reason why you think it's going to Spain is because all your mates were saying 'Do this, it's great, we'll end up in Spain' - then you have a right to feel pissed off at your mates, but you don't really have a claim against the ticket-seller.
    However, if the ticket website said the ticket company advertised "tickets to Spain" in big letters on the side of a bus, with the smallest of small print in their T&Cs saying "tickets to Spain may not be available and tickets for an equivalent destination may be issued" then wouldn't you rightly feel pissed off with the seller? Especially if they claim that Siberia really is equivalent to Spain.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited June 15
    Ricardus wrote: »
    In your analogy, if all it says on your ticket is 'Out of England', and the terms and conditions of the website through which you bought the ticket don't give any indication of the final destination, and the reason why you think it's going to Spain is because all your mates were saying 'Do this, it's great, we'll end up in Spain' - then you have a right to feel pissed off at your mates, but you don't really have a claim against the ticket-seller.
    However, if the ticket website said the ticket company advertised "tickets to Spain" in big letters on the side of a bus, with the smallest of small print in their T&Cs saying "tickets to Spain may not be available and tickets for an equivalent destination may be issued" then wouldn't you rightly feel pissed off with the seller? Especially if they claim that Siberia really is equivalent to Spain.

    Well, in this case, what the ticket-seller did was spend £9m on a mailshot to all UK households, saying that buying this ticket would be a terrible idea (link) - the cost of which didn't count towards official Remain totals*. I would say that caveat emptor well and truly applies ...


    * Which incidentally is one reason why I think the issue of funding irregularities in the Leave campaign is less clearcut than it appears.
  • There is something very much wrong with the world that Ken Clarke is currently one of my heroes. His actions as Health Secretary and Education Secretary are a bit like Hunt and Gove only on a much smaller scale. He would tell you he was a brilliant chancellor and the reason for Labour's economic success 97-08. His ties to big Tobacco are well known.

    So I really don't like him or agree with him very much at all.

    On Brexit he's been very good and this from a long Guardian interview gives me hope...
    [Domonic Grieve said] "[if]the only way of stopping that prime minister [implementing a no-deal Brexit] would be to bring down that prime minister’s government... I will not hesitate to do that ... Even if it means my resigning the whip and leaving the party.”
    Clarke told the Observer he, too, would feel bound to do the same and thinks other Conservatives could follow suit,

    This gives me hope.

    AFZ
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    A 'Times' leader today wonders how anyone can negotiate a trade deal with the US knowing Trump could abrogate it on a whim.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    I've been arguing for this ever since the Withdrawal Agreement was reached.

    Indeed you have and so did Theresa May. This is why I think she was a jolly good Prime Minister and ought to have been thoroughly supported by everyone. Unfortunately my opinion does not seem to be widely shared.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    I've been arguing for this ever since the Withdrawal Agreement was reached.

    Indeed you have and so did Theresa May. This is why I think she was a jolly good Prime Minister and ought to have been thoroughly supported by everyone.

    It may well be preferable to choose the WA if the only other choice is No Deal, in the sense of the least terrible of two bad options - but the shape of the WA is a consequence of the UKs own redlines - specifically the UK wide backstop was a concession to the UK by the EU.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    I've been arguing for this ever since the Withdrawal Agreement was reached.

    Indeed you have and so did Theresa May. This is why I think she was a jolly good Prime Minister and ought to have been thoroughly supported by everyone. Unfortunately my opinion does not seem to be widely shared.

    This is only true in a very narrow sense.

    From about early 2018, she has been in an unwinable position but to a large extent that is of her own making.

    She set about from the moment she took over as PM pandering to the most extreme of Brexiteers and promising the impossible. That was always going to end only one way. Part of the reason why the No Deal brigade are so emboldened is because she promised them all they dreamed of.

    Whether that was before or after she read the detailed impact assessments is an intriguing question but one that doesn't dilute her responsibility.

    Could she had done differently? Absolutely. A Norway type option was possible* and had she started off that way, I suspect she would have been successful. The risk of that is that she may have split the Tory party. I don't pretend that is an easy thing for a true-Blue Tory. It really isn't. But you don't get to be a good Prime Minister by putting party before country.

    Yes she had a difficult hand to play and she played it very badly. She choose to stand for PM - she didn't have to. And with every challenging decision, she chose to pander and to deceive. Those are not the hallmarks of a good Prime Minister.

    It may have all fallen apart if she'd tried the difficult route but she was too cowardly to try. You could argue that her WA was the best possible, given the state of her party. I don't think so, but I understand the argument. However she should never have allowed talk of No Deal to be part of the government vocabulary. She should have left it to the extremists. But it played really well with the party so she kept reverting to it. Once again, moral cowardice.

    The only positive thing I will say about her is that she was not as bad as her immediate predecessor and I suspect she will turn out to be not as bad as her immediate successor.

    AFZ

    *This is not a given. There are very good reasons why the EU wouldn't like this but they have indicated it would have been available. And given the deeply divisive referendum that would have at least been a workable compromise.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate

    Eutychus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    You might at 11:30pm on the 31st of October when the EU have refused to grant another extension, making the choice stark and time too short.

    Well, in that situation, the best solution would be to have meaningful vote four and sign up to the withdrawal agreement, unless you're arguing that that would be worse than no-deal.

    I've been arguing for this ever since the Withdrawal Agreement was reached.

    Indeed you have and so did Theresa May. This is why I think she was a jolly good Prime Minister and ought to have been thoroughly supported by everyone. Unfortunately my opinion does not seem to be widely shared.
    Brexit aside. The austerity plan has not changed much for the better and has change a lot for the bad. Universal Credit was a disaster. People have died or killed them selves as a result her policies.
    Are these the signs of a good PM
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    A 'Times' leader today wonders how anyone can negotiate a trade deal with the US knowing Trump could abrogate it on a whim.
    That would only be an issue if Trump wins in 2020. Otherwise he'll be out of office by the time the UK can start negotiating. Assuming that common sense (or, as close to that as possible from people who think there are benefits for the UK leaving the EU) has any say, establishing some form of trade deal with the EU should be the priority. Until the general picture of a UK-EU trade deal is defined the UK won't be able to start negotiating with other nations*, because we'll need to see how the UK and EU deal with customs issues - if there's anything that includes some form of (partial) customs union such that (full) customs checks that would be applied can be relaxed then that would limit how we trade with other nations. And, if the intention is to maintain an open border in Ireland then there needs to be some form of customs union across that border.

    * Exceptions could be the nations with which we already have trade deals that will lapse with Brexit. If we renew those on the same terms then that shouldn't be a problem with negotiating a trade deal with the EU.
  • Lots of rumours that Labour are moving officially to second referendum position, with proviso for dissenters. The rumours are strong, but of course, nobody has a clue what effect this will have. Will Labour go up in the polls, or down?
  • Lots of rumours that Labour are moving officially to second referendum position, with proviso for dissenters. The rumours are strong, but of course, nobody has a clue what effect this will have. Will Labour go up in the polls, or down?

    Up. But not by much initially.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Lots of rumours that Labour are moving officially to second referendum position, with proviso for dissenters. The rumours are strong, but of course, nobody has a clue what effect this will have. Will Labour go up in the polls, or down?
    Up. But not by much initially.
    Labour has shed a lot of votes to the Liberal Democrats and Greens in England (and SNP in Scotland). It has shed fairly few votes to UKIP mark 2.
    There are two conclusions one could draw: either the votes lost to the Remain parties are gone, and but its Leave voters are content with its present strategy (for want of a better word), so it needs to stick with the present strategy; or else, it can get the Remain voters back by committing to a second referendum, while there's nothing to be had from UKIP 2 by not having one.
    Personally I voted Green at the European elections and would have voted Labour if I hadn't worried that it would confirm the leadership in the present course, so on that entirely unscientific sample they'd get voters back by committing to a second referendum. (Though not me: my MP is a pro-Remain rebel, so I'd vote Labour in a general election anyway.)
  • They are committed to a second referendum, just not to it being a three-line whip on supporting remain in that referendum
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Lots of rumours that Labour are moving officially to second referendum position, with proviso for dissenters. The rumours are strong, but of course, nobody has a clue what effect this will have. Will Labour go up in the polls, or down?
    Up. But not by much initially.
    Labour has shed a lot of votes to the Liberal Democrats and Greens in England (and SNP in Scotland). It has shed fairly few votes to UKIP mark 2.
    There are two conclusions one could draw: either the votes lost to the Remain parties are gone, and but its Leave voters are content with its present strategy (for want of a better word), so it needs to stick with the present strategy; or else, it can get the Remain voters back by committing to a second referendum, while there's nothing to be had from UKIP 2 by not having one.
    Personally I voted Green at the European elections and would have voted Labour if I hadn't worried that it would confirm the leadership in the present course, so on that entirely unscientific sample they'd get voters back by committing to a second referendum. (Though not me: my MP is a pro-Remain rebel, so I'd vote Labour in a general election anyway.)

    There are 2 arguments that you hear from Labour supporters. The Lexiteers (Left-Bexiteers) will tell anyone who will listen that Labour has to support Brexit or will never win an election again. Then there's the other side of how many votes Labour lost to pro-Remain parties. (Including mine, and I'm a member).

    So there's plenty of shouting about which is the biggest group and what is the right thing to do. So you have to look at the quality polling and work out the answer.

    Essentially, a more pro-Remain position will lose Labour some support. OTOH, not taking such a position will lose Labour far more (and already is).

    The reason why I don't think Labour support will go up much initially is because a lot of Remain supporters don't trust Corbyn at the moment. I think that would change in the heat of a campaign because Corbyn is an excellent campaigner and Labour could campaign very convincingly for a People's Vote once that becomes the cornerstone of the platform as I think it will in the end.

    AFZ
  • Essentially, a more pro-Remain position will lose Labour some support. OTOH, not taking such a position will lose Labour far more (and already is).

    Even if that were true at a national level, the electoral calculus would still depend on which constituencies the respective support is in. Losing support to Lib Dem/Green in a constituency where the three parties are basically competing for second place, or where Labour were already ridiculously safe, doesn't mean much in terms of Seats. But losing a relatively small number of votes in swing constituencies, or a relatively large number of votes in a few "safe" ones such as Oldham (where "safe" means people had historically voted Labour mostly out of habit rather than desire, but now they may have something they actually want to vote for) could mean winning an election becomes a lot less likely.

    Or to put it another way, gaining the votes of affluent, intelligent and socially-conscious metropolitan elites such as yourself won't mean much if they lose the votes of the traditional working class.
  • Essentially, a more pro-Remain position will lose Labour some support. OTOH, not taking such a position will lose Labour far more (and already is).

    Even if that were true at a national level, the electoral calculus would still depend on which constituencies the respective support is in. Losing support to Lib Dem/Green in a constituency where the three parties are basically competing for second place, or where Labour were already ridiculously safe, doesn't mean much in terms of Seats. But losing a relatively small number of votes in swing constituencies, or a relatively large number of votes in a few "safe" ones such as Oldham (where "safe" means people had historically voted Labour mostly out of habit rather than desire, but now they may have something they actually want to vote for) could mean winning an election becomes a lot less likely.

    Or to put it another way, gaining the votes of affluent, intelligent and socially-conscious metropolitan elites such as yourself won't mean much if they lose the votes of the traditional working class.

    You are right in theory but detailed polling debunks this. Labour is in a lot of trouble if it doesn't become properly anti-Brexit. In the short term, the party has a trust problem with remainers.

    This covers it quite well with reference to Kellner's polling analysis.

    Essentially, the number of people who might vote Labour but wouldn't if a People's Vote was in the manifesto is actually quite small. There are still a lot of leave voters in Labour seats but a majority of them won't vote Labour anyway. In a theoretical seat where Labour got say 37% of the vote to a Conservative 32% (totally made up figures) the fact that the area is 55% pro-leave could be irrelevant if that 37% Labour support is mostly drawn from the 45%...

    It also has the advantage of being the right thing to do.

    AFZ
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Can someone define "metropolitan elite" for me? Who are these city dwellers with powers that the ordinary folk don't have, or am I completely misunderstanding the term? Why is AFZ one of them? Am I? I have most of the same views but live in a suburban village in Derbyshire. It's so confusing.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I too am not an elite and I live in London. A couple of years ago London had three of the most deprived areas in the country. On top of this Labour has had more mayors than the Conservatives. My borough has been Labour for a long time. The metropolitan elites are in the minority.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    I too am not an elite and I live in London. A couple of years ago London had three of the most deprived areas in the country. On top of this Labour has had more mayors than the Conservatives. My borough has been Labour for a long time. The metropolitan elites are in the minority.

    Who are they? Can we name three members of the Metropolitan Elite?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    No. They tend to live in expensive houses and keep themselves to themselves.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited June 20
    Hugal wrote: »
    No. They tend to live in expensive houses and keep themselves to themselves.

    Why is it assumed they voted Remain? And in what sense are they an elite?

    I'm trying to get to the bottom of what "Metropolitan elite" means; it's trotted out as if everyone understands it but I'm not convinced.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I kind of agree with you. I think the phrase is aimed at those who live big houses in expensive areas of cities. Having lived in both the north (Preston) and the south (London) there are richer areas in London, but quite a lot of it is poor.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Can someone define "metropolitan elite" for me? Who are these city dwellers with powers that the ordinary folk don't have, or am I completely misunderstanding the term? Why is AFZ one of them? Am I? I have most of the same views but live in a suburban village in Derbyshire. It's so confusing.

    :lol:

    Wiki covers it quite well. It's a bit like political correctness in that it is mythological bollocks.

    Someone like me, who grew up in a single-parent household with below median income until I was a teenager, significant mental illness in the family, went to the local comprehensive school and now have more letters after my name than in my name*, is apparently an 'elite' of some sort when Eton old-boys like Rees-Mogg and Johnson who were born in millionaire families and now hold power are apparently 'ordinary blokes.'

    If that's not enough to show you that it's bollocks, it's also not true that the majority of working class voted for Brexit... it's the well off old people you're thinking of. (I really can't be bothered to go find the reference for that one.)

    AFZ

    *Sorry, don't mean to boast but it happens to be true. Also I don't live in a city.
  • It's a bit like "drain the swamp" in Trumpspeak, in other words, vote in me and my rich cronies and we'll pretend that we are not a swamp.
This discussion has been closed.