Will Liz Truss really last only 17 more days?

[Uninspiredusername]

Newspaper reports as scathing as ever, and The Times suggesting Tories are lining up Sunak and Mordaunt as a duo.

can’t stand the woman but surely she’ll hold on for a bit longer - everyone was saying Boris would go much earlier than he did. And why on earth did they vote her into power in the first place 🙄

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

Farage before the referendum 😂

Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second referendum www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

But at least Penny knows what a woman is!! Oh….

The thing is, @Grammarnut remainers were also called names. And Nigel Farage went on the record saying that he would not consider 52/48 for remain a result that shouldn't be revisited. And yet we've had 6 years of that 52/48 being put on a pedestal, set in stone and described as an 'overwhelming' mandate for leaving the EU.

Here we are now, having left the EU, and it's a shitshow. Yes, COVID and the Ukraine war have contributed to that. But if you look at the graphs detailing economic recovery from COVID in the EU before the war, they are stark - the UK has not recovered. You as an avid Leaver may want to blame that on the EU 'being nasty' - in the real world, people are starting to know better. Brexit has contributed a hefty slice to the UK's economic woes and those of us who redicted this and were yelled at for promoting 'Project Fear' aren't going to be silenced.

Sovereignty is important.

The UK no longer has Sovereignty. The Tories have trashed the country to the extent that we are teetering on bankruptcy. We have had 4 PMs in 6 years. 4 Chancellors in 4 months. Our PM is in hiding and Jeremy Hunt is running the government to suit the markets and the banks.

Where is the Sovereignty or even democracy in that?

We had sovereignty inside the EU. This is what the Leavers never understood.

Not victims. But those who were angry at the Brexit vote did say some pretty unpleasant things. They also wanted to overturn a democratic vote even after it had been backed by an Act of Parliament after Miller's challenge in the Supreme Court. Had the vote gone the other way I doubt Brexiteers would have marched calling Remain voters foul names. Certainly I would not.

But what you think would've happened in a situation that didn't happen means absolutely nothing.

What we know is that the Leave side would not have accepted a democratic vote, insofaras the referendum where there were multiple breaches of electoral laws could be called that anyway, and would've regarded the matter as unfinished business. Because Farage told us as much.

This is what happens when there's a close split on a binary issue, and is why it would've been a better idea to negotiate a softer Brexit, perhaps even EEA membership. It would've brought more of the population along with it. If we'd stayed in the EEA, lots of Remainers would think it wouldn't be worth the faff of changing things again. The version that the Brexiters actually went for alienates that constituency, is simply going to radicalise, and makes it more likely that we'll end up rejoining.

Hence I would agree with previous posters that it's best done slowly. We don't want to make the same mistakes the Brexiters have made in terms of overreaching a mandate.

Just because Nigel Farage - whom I do not support in any way being a paid-up member of the Labour Party and a Bennite socialist (and hence not a fan of the EU) - said 52/48 was not good enough does not make it not good enough. A simple majority was required: 50% of the turnout +1. That is what the Act allowing the advisory referendum stipulated; the question was dictated by the need (Electoral Commission, I think) for referenda questions to be binary (like sex) and the turnout was very high. That pundits and polls suggested Remain would win just showed what a bubble Westminster and their friends live in (Truss seems to live in an even tinier one) and matters not - an opinion poll is not a vote. Yes, I think some Brexiteers were rude but a huge number of those who wanted to stay in the EU essentially demanded that democracy be disposed of since the answer the people had given did not suit.

Your lack of logic is breathtaking @Grammarnut. That margin would have led to another referendum if the vote had gone the other way. Democracy, it appears, is a one way street for leavers.

Just because Nigel Farage - whom I do not support in any way being a paid-up member of the Labour Party and a Bennite socialist (and hence not a fan of the EU) - said 52/48 was not good enough does not make it not good enough.

This is a pretty meaningless statement.

It seems what you're saying is that you think 52/48 in favour of Remain would've settled the issue for you, which is fine. You can make that decision for yourself. It demonstrably wouldn't have been good enough for lots of Leavers, who would have been encouraged by the result and wanted to build on it. Understandably so.

Obviously they'd still have to convince people like you, or some other group to replace you, in order to be successful. But of course they would've attempted to do it.

I loved Tony Benn and saw him speak many times - so if true then you're a Lexiteer like Larry Elliot of the Guardian - it is a principled if somewhat misguided opinion in my opinion but can't be arsed to argue for it nor would I wish to lie in the same bed as many on the right with their 'kultur wars' and little England outlooks.

Labour’s new stance makes sense, and not just because it gives the party a chance of winning the next election. Until recently there were only two options: a wasted-opportunity Brexit where nothing much happens and the economy trundles along much as before; and a rightwing free-market Brexit. Now there’s a third: a Labour Brexit in which the state uses its new powers to build a greener, fairer, levelled-up Britain.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/31/post-brexit-economic-crisis-labour-eu-britain

That is what the Act allowing the advisory referendum stipulated

An advisory referendum acted upon as if were binding. Bending the rules or rather circumventing the rules that such a referendum should have had. That’s not democratic at all - it’s actually subverting democracy.

Whoosh. That’s the sound of that very important point going straight over your head.

But that’s all alright, isn’t it. Because sovereignty🙄

It would have satisfied me, certainly. I would have continued to want to leave the EU but that would have become much more difficult had we stayed for longer. There are reasons for being in the EU and reasons not to be. I tend towards those that say not: unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy in charge, powerless parliament, majority voting and the continued loss of vetos on controversial matters, unaudited budgets, the acquis communitaire, the idea of subsuming all our cultures into one pan-European culture, the use to which free movement is intended to be put i.e. to lower wages, especially at the bottom end of the labour market, the subordination of workers' rights to the right of establishment. Arguments for are: the ease of trade, access to European universities, recognition of qualifications for some, free movement (without realising it lowers wages for many and also allows particularly British businesses to import already trained workers instead of training local people, which is more costly), the mixing of cultures, the push for liberal human rights in all spheres whether these are liked or not, or, indeed good for society or not. We don't agree! It's not the end of the world.

ALL UK referenda are advisory and (bar the Scottish one in '79 some consider wrecked by the demand for 40% of the electorate to vote for an assembly, and considered thus unfair) all have been acted upon. Parliament was forced to vote on the result by Miller's legal challenge. I am pretty sure Miller assumed that MPs, being mostly remainers, would vote against the result. But democracy has been hard won in the UK, and worked for over 800 years, so the MPs voted to back the result and carry it out because their consciences would not allow them to vote against a democratic decision of the sovereign people, from whom their own legitimacy is derived (would have put in question their legitimacy if they had, btw). It was the Act to carry out the referendum which made us leave the EU, not the referendum result by itself and Parliament could have decided to do this without a referendum. I think an understanding of how referendums function in the UK 's parliamentary democracy has gone right over your head along with an understanding of what it means to put a question to the (sovereign) voters.

This is a good grown-up discussion between Jame Ob and Mick Lynch that a different sort of Brexit was possible. But then we had Johnson and a far-right Tory party and the rest is history.

Why would it? Giving second referendums when the answer is wrong is an EU trope. When the vote was 'Yes' to should we stay in the EEC in 1975 there was no re-run. There would not have been a referendum in 2016 had Cameron not wanted to silence the Leave element in the Conservative party. Other referendums were not repeated even when the result was not what everyone wanted e.g. the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 - despite Ms Sturgeon's attempts.

I think that listing workers' rights in the column of things which were bad about being in the EU shows a certain lack of understanding. Unless you don't actually like the idea of workers having rights.

Yes, I suppose I am a Lexiteer. I wanted a socialist Brexit and not the Tory free market one we have got. But to leave seemed the first necessity for the opportunity would not last forever - we were becoming too much entwined in the EU to get free. I so wish Labour had got behind the electorate and campaigned for a socialist Brexit - they would have won the 2019 election more than likely and we would not have the current lot of self-inflicted ills (though we still would have had covid). Lost opportunity!

A different sort of Brexit was never possible with the Leave cohort we had, unfortunately. Mick Lynch is quite wrong on that one. It's one of the many reasons I never seriously considered a Leave vote despite having many criticisms of the EU.

I do like the idea of workers' rights. The EU is no champion of them if you look at how they tend to back business over trades unions, and the right of establishment over workers' concerns. Free movement itself is a Trojan horse against workers' rights as it allows a low-wage economy to be introduced even into reasonable-wage economies and allows particularly British businesses to avoid paying for training. I am not fond of technocratic government either since I have no love of other people telling me what is good for me! The EU forced the Greek government to act against the will of the Greek people who did not want their economy to spiral into deep depression through austerity. The Portuguese did not want to privatise their water but were made to do so. In many countries outside the EU, especially developing countries, liberalization is insisted upon before any investment or trade is agreed on - liberalization means privatising nationally owned assets and often removing protections intended to help local industry and agriculture - not very worker friendly.

The lexiteer fantasies about the EU eg @Grammarnut 'subsuming all our cultures into one pan-European culture' are every bit as bizarre as the brexiteer imaginary enemies. Neither have ever offered up credible plans to fill the post Brexit economic crater.

I do like the idea of workers' rights. The EU is no champion of them

Unfortunately neither are the people Lexiters chose to align yourselves with.

I always felt proud that our employment rights in the UK were generally better than the EU legal minimums. That we were a positive example and the EU laws were more of a safety net. They were nice to have but we wouldn't need them. The Tory right, who have been so empowered by Brexit, clearly disagreed.

It's incredibly naive to think that a socialist Brexit was ever going to happen in a country like the UK. Voting Leave was only ever going to benefit the Tories and now we have JRM planning a bonfire of workers' rights. Nice job, Lexiters.

It's incredibly naive to think that a socialist Brexit was ever going to happen in a country like the UK. Voting Leave was only ever going to benefit the Tories and now we have JRM planning a bonfire of workers' rights. Nice job, Lexiters.

Yep. Useful idiots, all of them. Sadly.

So the deputy PM isn't even doing her job except dealing dodgy drugs.

Penny's probably getting her practice in for the next leadership battle