Westminstenders: Lets get on with...

[RedToothBrush]

Admitting the mandate for leaving has expired.

The newspapers today are full of Talk of both Corbyn and May panicking that Brexit is destroying their parties, so after nearly 3 years of party politics they have decided that actually they can agree on something in the next week or so. Not because it's in the national interest but because they don't fancy mutual self assured destruction.

If they do manage to cobble something together then it with be rushed and shite.

If they don't they will be punished at the Euro elections by a Remain / Leave pincer action.

They can spin it all they like from their local election disaster that it was people wanting to get on with Brexit. It certainly does not change the reality that those people who were most likely to vote are fed up with the pair of them. And that there is a strong indication that the most motivated voters are remain leaning. Perhaps its true that leavers stayed home in protest. If they did, what will they do if the Brexit Party stand candidates at a general election? Maybe they will vote, but you can't argue that they view voting itself as an important act. Spoilt ballots were up, but not that up. If the pair do manage a deal, then we have Brexited which might satisfy some. The trouble is the underlying issues are not to do with the European Union. And even if we leave with a deal that does not resolve our future trading relationship. The poison that is Brexit won't end. And the voters will realise that soon enough. Leaving even with a deal will harm the economy, and that's only going to fuel discontent.

It's therefore hard to see where either party go from here. Not when they are effectively split internally. The poison is here to stay.

Spinning it as 'it shows the public want us to get on with Brexit' isn't going to help their cause with voters who still think leaving is a national disaster. Those voters will still think its a national disaster and will be even more pissed at being ignored and dismissed once again.

Where is the incentive to return to voting Labour or Conservative?

The Euro Elections, if they go ahead, will therefore be about one thing and one thing only: turnout. Even if the Brexit Party do relatively well, it will be about how many turnout in comparison to the locals and in comparison to the last EU elections. Whilst they might not admit the reality of things, ultimately all Labour and Conservatives really care about is securing the vote of people who will vote because voting intention doesn't win them seats if people don't turnout.

It would be massively useful if the UK as a whole understood that whatever happens the WA will be signed. Then they could decide what they wanted to do further than that, be it Well hard/hard/medium/soft/very limp Brexit.

Polling card delivered half an hour ago

My polling card came this week. Dh had a letter explaining what he as an eu27 national needed to do if he wanted to vote here the week before. He has no intention of voting here but it was good to see that MCC are actively contacting people in his situation .

You don't need "remain" as an option in a referendum.

"Remain" is what will happen if Leavers can't agree on how to leave.

Sorry, but we've been pandering to these cockwombles for nearly 3 years now, and have only the derision of the world to show for it.

When will someone formally come out and say "enough is enough. If Brexit can't be sorted in 3 years, maybe it can never be sorted ?

They can;t put no deal on a ballot for a confirmatory referendum BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PLAN!!!!!!! It is a vote for more chaos and confusion. There is simply no point attempting to climb out of the current quagmire by giving the choice back to the people if you are then going to offer them more quagmire as an option.

The only way No Deal can go on a ballot paper is if they turn it into a plan - explain how long we are willing to live without a deal - if it is forever or if it is until there is a 'good deal'. They need to explain what they think a 'good deal' looks like AND what they will do in the event that Europe refuses to sign this deal (because we cannot vote on what the EU will do - our plan has to be what we will do, not what we expect and hope others to do). It has to explain how the government will support British manufacturing and agriculture during this time and how they will deal with the lack of medicines. What systems they will put in place if rationing becomes necessary and of course, how they will man the NI border - as we can't control our borders if we have a soft border with the EU - and how much IRA activism we are ready to sustain because of this. ONCE they have decided all this and laid it out in a manifesto THEN it can go on a ballot. But they wouldn't do that because no one is going to vote for rationing and terrorism.

But the fact is - if the people vote 'no deal' then ANY deal signed at any point is a betrayal of 'the will of the people' UNLESS we also have a referendum on that (but second referendums are antidemocratic) OR they outline the deal we want before no deal is chosen which is ... rather counterproductive. And an impossible thing to offer as the British people cannot vote on what international bodies will offer us.

It would be more lies - leading to more chaos - which would render the whole thing pointless. And that is the reason they should refuse to put it on the ballot. No dealers won't listen to the 'project fear' of medicine and food shortages and civil war in Northern Ireland. Nor are they ever going to understand that whatever form brexit takes, the W.A will have to be signed at some point. But they can be told that they can't have their favoured option unless they flesh it out and make it a plan. And it isn't a plan. So they can't do that. They don't have a leg to stand on.

A confirmatory referendum is exactly that - here is the PLAN do you want it, yes or no? You cannot have a confirmatory referendum that includes 'no plan - but close your eyes really tightly and wish really hard'.
That's chaos not governance.

DG We most certainly DO need Remain as an option - if there is a PV
The country is split, the politicians are deadlocked

Unfortunately, the legal default is not Remain; it is No Deal
It is also the political default

Last week I emailed the chap in charge of elections in our council to see if I needed to do anything additional as I hadn't got my overseas voting card and he replied saying that I was good but they hadn't sent them out yet.
He is very thorough and contacts me each year with the paperwork I need to fill out.

Pretty The backstop will be activated if the UK cannot negotiate a future deal in transition which avoids the necessity.

The only deal that does that is either an NI-only backstop or an SM+Customs arrangement

• and probably the backstop will remain as an insurance policy even after an SM+CA deal,^ given the lack of trust the EU must now feel wrt UK politicians.

So it is quite likely we'll either be in transition for many years, or the all-UK backstop will be activated

pretzels We have already had one referendum in which Leave promised different unicorns to everyone

Clearly we shouldn't have, but Tory party politics trumped the prosperity and well-being of the country

That is likely to happen again, particularly if Labour also agree that No Deal should be in a PV

I think we need some proper Brexit developments otherwise this thread could go horribly wrong.

Here's a development - debating the direction of the next EU Commission presidency in Florence last week;

Guy Verhofstadt;
"European army!" A European army of 20,000 people in 2024. Let’s do it."

www.politico.eu/article/frenzy-in-firenze-4-takeaways-from-eu-lead-candidate-debate

Nigel Farage will have a field day if there's a second referendum - an EU army, EU enlargement talks already scheduled for June...

The Telegraph reported that May had discussions with officials and ministers about holding a referendum that would give voters the choice between leaving the European Union with a deal, leaving without a deal, or not leaving at all

Leaving with a deal - there cannot be a vote on this until the EU and UK agree what 'The Deal' is. As others have said above, the WA is not 'The Deal.' The WA is about how the UK leaves the EU, not about the future relationship, which would be negotiated after the UK leaves and which might take as long as 5 years to conclude, so voters would be voting blind. 'A (proposed) Deal' as might be agreed between May and Corbyn is meaningless if the EU cannot agree to it, and voting on it would be pointless. 'The Deal' also has to take into account the GFA.

Leaving without a deal - seriously bad idea. It breaches the GFA, which is an international treaty, and rips up 750 other Agreements that the UK is party to. 'No Deal' would destroy the UK socially, economically and politically.

Not leaving at all - the only option that is actually deliverable. Not likely to be popular with about a third of the electorate who want to leave, but their cheerleaders have yet to come up with any workable alternative, so while they work that out, the rest of us and the politicians can address the important issues - housing, inequality, healthcare, education, crime and policing, the environment etc.

BigChoc - for the avoidance of doubt I understand that

It's the ERGers and extreme Brexiters that don't. Or rather, maybe they do, which is why they are so scared of it despite their protestations that it is not necessary as there are technological solutions already available

But the point is, the WA is not a (or the ) trade deal, despite people talking about it as if it were . It is, what it says on the in, the Withdrawal Agreement. Not the final trade deal (which only the broad bones of which are outlined in the PD and are totally non-binding and dependent on whoever is in control - in both the EU and the UK - in the years during which it is negotiated). Even in the comments under the article about a 3 way referendum that littlespaces posted up, not one person pointed out that the WA wasn't actually the final trade deal And it's rarely pointed out on the MSM

I don't disagree it's likely too - but that is the reason we shouldn't put no deal on the ballot. No point in confirming that the future plan for our country is ... no plan.
It neither panders to the no dealers nor shoots them down so they can claim forever it's undemocratic. It just tells them that they can have what they want IF they can turn it into a workable plan and convince enough people that their vision is what is best. Same as any other political position. It means that before they can campaign for it, they need to sit down and bullet point how long it lasts, what deal they will accept and how they will make up for the economic shortfall. Once they have a plan that passes the electoral commissions standard of being workable enough to go on a ballot, it can go on the ballot.
Obviously some safeguarding will be necessary this time around (doesn't mean I think safeguarding will happen, to be clear) and one of those safeguards would be that each position has a clear and checked manifesto that is workable in the real world.

What happened last time IS the very reason they should refuse a non-plan all things to all people option on the ballot. That's literally my point. If their aim is to find a way forward from a mess created because the plan was undefined - then creating something else that is undefined and following that WILL NOT help them.

Does not mean I don't think they won't be that stupid. But it is a valid reason not to include 'no deal' as an option. There is always some idiot who will claim that, as it is popular, it is undemocratic not to include it (as if the right to vote away international peace treaties and vote to prevent other people receiving life saving medication is an inalienable tenet of democracy). This way, the government gets to say 'fine - we will include your preferred option IF you can make it a workable plan. IF you can't, we won't - because there is no point asking people if they want something that won't work.'

It solves the problem. But just because it solves the problem does not mean it will be used. But just because it won't be used doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out as being a clear and sensible way forward.

Just simply making them define whether no deal means we will forever eschew trade deals with Europe or whether they mean leave without a deal and then work towards one is enough to cause them to implode. And if they agree we will be working towards a deal - making them define what would be acceptable, how it will be decided if the deal is brexit or treason and what will happen if the treacherous EU refuse their terms of a good deal would kill it stone dead.

Guy Verhofstadt
"European army!" A European army of 20,000 people in 2024. Let’s do it

Clavinova omitted to quote other participants in the debate:

[Frans] Timmermans … was especially dismissive of talk of an EU army. "Don’t overpromise," he said. "There is not going to be a European army anytime soon."

Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden are all Neutral countries and so would veto any idea of participating in an EU army - as presumably the UK could do too if still a member.

The politicians are just going round and round and round and round and round and round (you get the point) trying to square a circle.

The problem is, as we've said SO many times on here, is that 'Brexit' means such different things to so many that it's rendered undeliverable as it's impossible to please anyone at all judging by the antics of parliament.

The thick gammons who want to no deal and 'just leave' aren't bright enough to listen to, as it's simply not possible to do that.

Every 'moderate' leaver has their own idea as to what 'Brexit' is (Norway, Norway ++, Canada ++ etc) so maybe can't be pleased / appeased with alternative options. So, again, this renders it undeliverable.

As someone said up thread, the only thing which can successfully be provided is no Brexit, as it's the only one with a definite process and outcome.

And somebody needs to visit every single person who doesn't get it (either because they're wilfully obtuse, or just not capable of getting the message any other way) to explain WHAT the WA is, what it means and that it needs signing whatever form of 'Brexit' we choose (ha!).

I'm sick of all this utter shit now. Maybe they're hoping we all get so bored / pissed off, they can call it off, but all people notice is that people have just stopped banging on about it.

In fact, TM should write that letter now and bury the news under the royal baby stuff! Maybe when the photos of him are published.

Havanananana
Clavinova omitted to quote other participants in the debate

Indeed - two out of the four participants want an EU army, not just the one.

They are arguing about this in Ireland as well;

"If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck..."
Dublin MEP candidates clash over potential for EU army.

www.thejournal.ie/eu-army-debate-dublin-4620782-May2019/

As I said, Nigel Farage is going to have a 'field-day' with this...

Does anybody here think the HoC/cabinet have yet got the fact that the WA is NOT a deal into their skulls yet?
I presume Theresa does as that is why she keeps pushing for it but it seems that there is a massive mental block with almost all the others either because 'the UK is special' and as it didn't write the WA so they don't need to sign it, and they are being deliberately obtuse to either score political points, which don't normally make prizes or they are too thick to understand 2 sentences written and repeated by Mr Junker and 'the team' since November.

As it's a Bank Holiday ds (politics undergraduate) got me to do the political compass test. I came out as being bang in line with Noam Chomsky. I'll take that.

www.politicalcompass.org/

{As I said, Nigel Farage is going to have a 'field-day' with this...}

With the aspect that if the UK leaves the EU it could be on the 'receiving' end of potential hostilities.

I don't understand the stuff about a European army - as if military cooperation was anything fundamentally new or bad.

I put it in the "Turkey is joining" category, because it's always the same people who get worked up about it.

DG We most certainly DO need Remain as an option - if there is a PV

(panto chorus)

No we don't. Quite aside from having to listen to the whiney Leavers about a second chance (we'll forget how many chances they've had over the past 3 years) it would be an accurate reflection of reality. (You can make your own jokes here). The reality being the default position is still not to leave the EU.

Putting Remain on the ballot simply invites a ludicrous result of:

REMAIN: 33%
Leave (with WA): 33%
Leave (no Deal): 33%

I cannot begin to explain how sick I am of hearing about "the will of the people" as if it's a magic spell that can somehow trump centuries of carefully built up give and take that just about held the entire country together.

Considering we ploughed straight into Iraq and France and (I think) Germany did not ... I would suggest that the EU has more to fear from us joining their army than we do from them making us join. (although currently there is no 'them' and 'us'. just 'us'. And we couldn't be made to join if we didn't want to - because veto.)

Unless the UK says otherwise the UK is leaving and that is still the default.
Every 'leave' option involves the WA being signed eventually.
Politicians can argue the toss (they have been doing so for 3 years already) but the ultimate choice is basically in or out.
The supplementary question if 'out' is chosen is how much pain would you like?
It is obviously a struggle to get there but citizens rights would appear to be the only thing not ultimately on the table, as the finances will need sorting out again, and the hard details about the border need nailing down.

The only way to not include remain as an option on the ballot and still have remain as default would surely be if the question was

Do you want us to accept the Withdrawal agreement?
Yes
No

with the clear understanding put out before hand that a vote for 'no' would result in us staying in the EU and not in us no dealing. I don't think it's an especially clear question to ask and is open to much misinterpretation and accusations of 'overturning the referendum' - without even letting people to actually vote to overturn the referendum. Because people who don;t accep the W.A could be rejecting it for any number of reasons - but are then having this one interpretation froced into them (and as remainers who apparently voted for remain parties to tell labour we want them to get on with brexit - we all know how frustrating that is)

But you certainly can't ask - no deal Vs W.A and then say 'right that settles it - remain it is.' There is no way of getting a remain result from a list of two options of which remain is not one.

A 3 way vote is ridiculous - but that doesn't mean it is remain that shouldn't be on the ballot.
Besides aren't you as likely to get remain: 50%
brexit : 50%
as you are to get an exact three way split?