Westminstenders: Break it or make it.

[RedToothBrush]

We have a deal on the table. In reality it does not answer the question the result of the referendum posed: what type of deal do we want? The progress we have actually made in 2 years is to say, 'we want to leave' but nothing more. Or as its been termed: 'Blind Brexit' in which we exit but without knowing what comes next.

Even this is controversial. There are apparently some 88 Conservative back bench MPs (or half the Conservative back bench MPs) who are intending to vote against approving the deal. Some are remainers and some are hard leavers. Each side believing there is still everything to play for; whether that be no deal or no brexit. We are still as divided as ever.

The stumbling block, as ever, is largely the NI backstop. With many still arguing that it should be time limited. This fails to understand that the backstop is the GFA to all intents and purposes. And this is why Ireland and the EU will never agree to have a time limited backstop.

And once again we have this fundamental misunderstanding that the withdrawal agreement is anything more than merely the mechanism to leave, not the final deal, which is hampering all discussion of the subject.

There is talk that May will try to push the deal through and if she fails she will try for a second time. This might work, if this wasn't being anticipated. The trouble is the element of surprise is gone. This has now been denied by a No10 spokesperson. And has the possibility of a second referendum. Though the door on that, seems to be more open than less, with May's official declaration of a Blind Brexit. The whole effectiveness of a TARP style situation and a second vote on the deal in the HoC is the guilotine effect, where MPs look over the cliff and go 'shiiiiiitttt'. If the hope is alive for another way out for either the ERG or Remainers, then the plan is dead anyway. The a50 ECJ case is also still on; the latest government appeal to kill it was blocked.

Not only this, but there is the first tangable rumblings of discontent within the EU towards the deal. Spain has talked about voting the deal down. Whether this is anymore than talk, remains to be seen. Spain can not veto the deal at this stage anyway - but it might be able to cause trouble further down the line and thats the danger.

Meanwhile Labour are still promising unicorns and a total renegotition of the deal. This still focuses on the backstop.

Sunday's EU summit does still seem to be on though, despite Merkel suggesting that she wouldn't turn up.

And remember, as it stands, on 29th March we will leave the EU without a deal. The power to stop this lies with the Government and EU as far as we know at present, pending the outcome of the ECJ case.

May still has everything to do to make a deal happen and there are so many forces and people working to break it. We have still not made any real progress to Brexit, apart from get closer to it, through the mere ticking of the clock.

Yes, peregrina and it is much simpler to act against an individual candidate in a local area where the wrongdoing can be quantified and proven

This would mean having to proving that rule-breaking affected the final results over the whole country
If this happened in a GE, then wouldn't be a new GE, just rerun elections in those constituencies where misconduct had been proven.

Referenda are not part of our normal system and we don't have established tools to deal with abuse of them

We have no tools to deal with dark money and foreign oligarchs or intelligence services interfering in our normal politics:
this has happened in both German and French GEs, in fact across the EU,
as (mostly US) oligarchs try to smash the EU, to have easier pickings with individual countries and chaos

Bannon is openly working to bring the far right into power across Europe
Currently, those countries with laws against foreign donations are better able to fight him off

However, how do we stop voters reading mass tabloids, viewing foreign-funded social media ?

The Brexit ref was just the beginning of a hidden war across the West, of the oligarchs taking back control from the people

• not by armed force, but by conning them into voting against their own interests

If relying on the HoC which SHOULD be directing the country, after the little I saw the other week I am panicking due to the apparent lack of comprehension of the problem.

LeClerc The problem is that Leavers don't believe that 900 quid or any other loss.
They just look at figures stating the UK GDP is still growing (but more slowly), as is employment

Even those who understand that they haven't received an increase they would have otherwise - and believe that - won't regard is as a loss.

For a loss to bite, people actually have to lose something they have now, that they value

BCF
I agree of course.
Had it been a sudden cut in doctors or a tax rise it would be easy to see but at the moment this loss, and I expect others in future to be 'massaged' into other figures. Government will hide 'cause and effect'.

to make people feel they are not being allowed the genuine choice they want

I understand why this wouldn’t work politically in the current climate, but the referendum on AV offered a choice between the status quo and a particular way of voting, not the status quo and any way of voting.

Are you arguing that the difference is that a significant number of people clearly support no deal?

Round here in South Lincolnshire, there are a lot of vacancies at the moment - for the past few years we've had very high immigration as it's unskilled work which doesn't require English, now factories can't find the people to do the work.

My question for leavers round here who say that immigration is too high is always who is going to take those jobs? Are they in favour of forcible relocation of people in high unemployment areas? Farmers I've spoken to never have British people applying to crop daffodils - it's back breaking work.

But now we've got Sir John Hayes of Lincolnshire and the Fens. I'd heard a few months ago that he was sniffing around for a knighthood, so I suppose he saw his chance. This is a man who, when he was minister for transport, told me that Lincolnshire's appalling infrastructure wasn't his problem. He's too busy campaigning to bring back the death penalty than to try and get trains running on Sundays (that's right, no public transport on Sundays).

To me there seems to be a complete disconnect between town and country at the moment. I work in London regularly and the contempt that I hear for leavers is pretty shocking - there's no attempt to try and understand why leavers feel as they do, why people feel that they're ignored by the government and finally had a chance to protest. Without both sides trying to understand the other than the schism is just going to widen.

We can't rerun votes just because we don't like the results, not unless there actually has been a large change in public opinion

Well, May called a snap GE because she didn't like the result of the previous GE 2 years earlier.

BUT of course this isn't like a normal election result, if Corbyn got in and did x y or z it could be undone in a future Parliament.
Leaving the EU is almost certainly irreversible unless its done within the transition period.

Should people still wish to leave, it gives a mandate for the future relationship with the EU, at the moment no one knows.

Aside, IF your correct about Bannon etc it makes it even more important we look again at this decision.
I also believe that significant interference/wrong doing in an election, regardless of whether it altered the result, can make the result void.

merry Yes, if you genuinely want a democratic vote, you can't exclude the #2 preference among voters
For them, No Deal is the only genuine Brexit, because they have so many red lines

May called a snap GE because she didn't like the result of the previous GE 2 years earlier.

I thought it was because she incorrectly believed the country hated Corbyn so much that she would significantly increase her majority.

I don’t think it was undemocratic to call an election - it was just that the result didn’t help her much.

The main problems with annulling the 2016 result because of fraud:

1. It would have to be fully proven in a court of law and there is no time for investigations & criminal trials

2. Remainers have sabotaged this by demanding a 2nd ref before the result was dry on the 1st ref, long before we knew about fraud
   So of course half the country think it's just another Remainer trick

3. Both Remainers & Leavers ignore the EU's views and just assume they'll agree to Uk demands.
   Some of the E27 are sick of the UK arguing with itself and insulting the EU,
   many just want us out, so they can concentrate on other issues.
   With Merkel's remarks over the last year, I wouldn't be surprised if she organised a veto

I have always opposed a 2nd ref
and one reason is that I suspected the conflicting Leave promises might lead to a political logjam - and I wanted to leave the road clear to a 2nd ref in that case, because it could actually be justified
Unfortunately, all those who demanded a 2nd ref ever since about 1 July 2016 have ruined that chance.

jas Our constitution requires GEs at least every 5 years and more often if the govt - who won the last GE - wants another

May was able to call a GE because her party had WON the last one - Corbyn could not have called a GE, because labour LOST
She was pushed to call a GE; because the Opposition kept saying that Cameron was elected PM, but noone elected her except Tory MPs.

It is a very important difference:
The LOSERS of the referendum want a rerun

If the WINNERS, Leave, wanted a new ref to choose the type of Leave after a political logjam, then that would be quite logical
(although the EU wouldn't give them an A50 extension for that)

Precedents:
Do you want to set a precedent that a narrow win for Scottish Independence or Irish Unity means the Uk Unionist losers get a 2nd vote ?

Or if Labour narrowly win a GE, promising to raise taxes to rescue the NHS & the Welfare State, to rule back Thatcherism,
should the wealthy rightwing be given a 2nd vote to see if the plebs can really demand more tax from them ?

if you genuinely want a democratic vote, you can't exclude the #2 preference among voters

Except - AV is not true proportional representation. The lib dem manifesto stated a referendum about proportional representation. They gave us a FPTP/ AV referendum that no one really wanted. They chose not to give us the option of actual proportional representation. They can choose not to give us the option of no deal.

The fact is - the government exists to make the hard decisions and to run the country to benefit the people (ha!) No matter how many people want to commit national and economic HarriKarri no responsible government can ever give them that option. You cannot allow people to vote to kill themselves and other people. Even if that is what over 50% of them want to vote for.

Perfect democracy does not exist. People may not be happy if no deal was not included - but only because they actually have no comprehension of what no deal means for them,. their children and the country as a whole. It may not be 'ideal democracy' to refuse the electorate a chance to vote for massive self harm - but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. It's one of the hard choices govt has to make -'this will make us unpopular but it will protect people in the long run'. They got into politics knowing that their job was going to be the hard choices - and that hard compromises would just go with the territory.
This is where they are. They can put what they like on that ballot paper. People can complain all they want - but at the end of the day, the government has a duty to protect citizens - even from their own stupidity. So far they have been woefully negligent in doing that. It's time they stepped up to the plate - and risked the loss of power that comes with putting country before populism.

If democracy is allowing under educated people to vote for diabetes sufferers to die from lack of insulin - then I'm afraid I want no part in it. But I don't believe that is actually what democracy is. That is mob rule.

pretzels Governments should make decisons.
That's why I have no problem with the PM and the govt deciding to revoke, without a PV

However, running a PV without what is by far the most popular Leave option would be like May calling a GE, but excluding the Labour party from standing.
Even if she believes, like many people, that Corbyn would be a disaster for the country

No Deal would be disastrous, but it is a legal option under international law
It is not illegal to vote to make yourselves much poorer
Of course it would be illegal to have a vote on e.g. gassing ethnic minorites

I doubt if the Electoral Commission, one of whose tasks is to vet a referendum question, would agree to a PV without
No Deal
Leave would appeal to the High Court, then if necessary the Supreme Court, even the EHRC or ICJ, to stop this.

BUT
All this is academic & premature until the ECJ rules whether we can revoke unilaterally
This decision is not expected before mid-December at the earliest

If they decide against, then the UK govt would have to ask the EU if they would unanimously agree

AND
The ECJ and / or the EU might make some tough conditions, such as repaying EU their Brexit costs, possibly even some optoutsProbably
Probably a hugh financial penalty (50 bn ?) for invoking A50 again within say the next 20 year

When real stuff starts to happen things will change.

I’m afraid that I / we have been saying that since the referendum, and it doesn’t seem to have made any difference. During the transition period we will be carrying on as before, so there won’t be any major food shortages, job losses, etc. (Not that I want to see them, I want to avoid them!).

As for the ref on PR, only the Ldems really gave a damn about that or knew anything about the various options

• it was not an issue tearing the country apart

btw, I thought Clegg was an utter fool to agree to a ref on PR

He should set the precondition of a PR bill, with a system the LDems wanted,
as the first bill of the Parliament
If it didn't pass, then the Coalition ends

He blew the best and maybe only chance the LDems ever had, to change the godawful FPTP
Another example of how a ref campaign can be manipulated, in that case quite openly by Cameron & the Tory party
Referenda are dreadful tools

it was not an issue tearing the country apart

Nor was the EU until Cameron called his stupid Referendum, and then it became a Referendum on austerity, immigration, and the NHS primarily, but dressed up with slogans.

I agree with you about Clegg - he should have said, a vote on a proper PR system or the Coalition is off, and we go for Confidence and Supply.

Referenda are not part of our normal system and we don't have established tools to deal with abuse of them

^^ This

Talking to friends from other countries, they don't understand why we haven't had a second In / Out referendum already, or why putting the proposed WA to a public vote isn't going to happen. Because they are used to political systems where things like banning battery hens and veal crates is put to a public vote, never mind something as momentous as Brexit.

They are gobsmacked when I point out that the Brexit referendum was only the second one I have been able to vote in (and I've been voting for c25 years and always cast a vote when eligible)

I think it's the third for me and I have been voting now for 48 years. Each time the rules have been different.

merrymouse

Of course its not undemocratic, i wasn't arguing that, my point is May called that GE because the previous one gave her majority of 30 and she wanted more, she didn't give a stuff that the "People" had spoken 2 years earlier, certainly few PMs in position call a GE because they weren't directly elected, we vote in a party not a PM.

Now it suits her to say a PV is undemocratic etc etc because she wants to leave the EU , she is no-more a Remainer than Raab or Gove, just a matter of degree.

However, i think the WA will go through on the first attempt, DUP will come on board, Grieve etc will buckle and ERG wont risk, however unlikely, a no brexit, they'll also be a few Labour rebels.

We've had 4 referendums in Scotland within 20 years: the Devolution one; the AV one; the Indyref; and the EU Referendum.

jas Under out system, the LOSERS cannot call a new GE, just because they didn't like losing

However, the WINNERS can call a GE anytime (well, easily before the FTPA)
because they are choosing to take the risk of squandering their win

The Remainers were the LOSERS at the last ref
If Leavers in desperation, say Jan / Feb also want a PV, then it's absolutely possible

BUT
As I posted, we probably won't know before early 2019 whether the ECJ / EU will let us Remain - and if so, under what new condtions

Please stop assuming the EU will give what you want

However, running a PV without what is by far the most popular Leave option would be like May calling a GE, but excluding the Labour party from standing.

Respectfully, I disagree. When 32% of people say they would vote for no deal - that is because they do not understand or refuse to believe what no deal encompasses.
If they really believed that no deal meant food scarcity and potential rationing meds shortages - including no treatment for cancer patients and no insulin massive inflation and a devaluing pound massive job losses spiralling homelessness and poverty and the hike in crime that would bring civil unrest and violence - then there is no way they would vote for that.
It is because they do not believe in the reality of the situation that they want to vote for this thing. They think nothing will change except we will be free to make our own rules and tell Johnny Foreigner bally well to do what he's told. But that is not the truth - it is a delusion based on ignorance,
It is not democracy to place delusions on a ballot paper and allow people to vote for them. It is pandering to the mob.

We live in the real world and our options have to reflect reality. People may not like them - but it doesn't change what the reality is. The problem with brexit is that the initial referendum pandered to a delusion instead of offering realism - and therefore was undemocratic in and of itself. But giving repeated false options on a ballot paper does not make the situation any better - it just gets us in even deeper.

Not putting no deal on a PV may be unpopular - because leavers hate the implication that they do not know what they are voting for. But it is not undemocratic because they are not - with informed consent - voting for the consequences of no deal, because they refuse to accept those consequences as a possibility. Sadly the phrase 'project fear' has ruled out any chance of them ever accepting the possibility of these consequences. Their denial is impenetrable. But it isn't democratic to allow people in denial of reality a chance to vote for their own impossible wish fulfilment - and make the rest of the country live with the consequences.

Labour is a reality not a delusion, they are tangible - they are there. And anyone voting for them knows basically what they are getting. They've read the manifesto - and we've had labour governments before. We know what they stand for and we also know we can vote them out again. Not including them on the ballot would be denying people who's views and beliefs align with those of labour a political voice.

It is very different to ask people to vote for something where you know the consequences will be x - but you also know they fervently believe the consequences will be y - and that they would never vote for x if they could accept that x was a possibility. Not giving them no deal as an option is simply saving them and the rest of the country from the consequences of their ignorance.
Pandering to their delusion is another form of lying and it is not democratic.

Not that I do particularly want a PV - I'd prefer May to just revoke. But what has to be on the ballot paper is not a foregone conclusion. TM will do what ever the hell she wants to do. Our speculation on what will/ could/ should/ might be allowed to happen is just filling in time whilst we wait and see. Doesn't matter what either one of us thinks in the end, they'll do what they want. They'll break rules and laws to do it if they have to - and it still wont be in the best interest of the county.
Trying to work out the scrupulous and democratic thing to do, when the government has gone so far past scruples and democracy that they can't even see them any more, is a bit of a waste of time.

she didn't give a stuff that the "People" had spoken 2 years earlier

The point was that she thought that given the changes in leadership their views would have changed. (And she was right - just not in the way she thought).

I don’t like referendums because of the disconnect between the people making the decisions and campaigning and the people who have to execute the policy.

However, I can see that if it were clear that there had been a substantial change in opinion since 2016 a referendum would rubber stamp a government decision to cancel Brexit.

The problem is that it’s not clear that anything has happened to change public opinion.

I think that with or without a 2nd referendum you always come back to the problem that there isn’t a clear majority in the country or parliament to do anything.

pretzels NO
What you are advocating would mean the end of universal suffrage
or the start of a massive populist backlash against a smug ruling elite

It would be like the fake elections held in dictatorships
where the people may only choose from selected parties & candidates

I would indeed fear that a future govt of the hard left or right might use this as a precedent to outlaw certain "dangerous" policies from all party manifestos.

Do people realise what voting for reducing welfare, UC, "rewarding workers not shirkers" means ?
Tax cuts for the rich
High uni fees ...

People keep voting for all these, so either they are utter fools, or are quietly callous about prioritising what they want,
when it only kills or hurts groups they don't much care about

Few people understand enough about what makes a modern country actually run as it does,
about benefits, taxes, public services, infrastructure, trade, foreign relations to vote in any GE, if that knowledge is the kind of criteria

Half the country has an IQ under 100, 16% under 85
About 25% of the country has problems with literacy or numeracy

That is why we elect representatives, whose job it is to assess and decide such complicated topics
The electorate has voted Leave
Now the elected govt should either Leave or revoke

I was frankly shocked at age 18 at being asked to choose in 1975 whether we Remained
I thought then that it was a shameful abrogation of govt responsibility
... and I had read the warnings from the German experiences with referenda

Many people who voted Remain in 1975 now claim the govt hid the European plans for much deeper integration
There was plenty of information telling us that, but people just couldn't evaluate it, all too complex.