Brexit delayed

[Digby]

If the latest spat of allegations gets serious, and there likely are some serious stories around which may or may not be unearthed and may or may not get printed, how many by-elections are we from another General Election?

[Sandydragon]

If the latest spat of allegations gets serious, and there likely are some serious stories around which may or may not be unearthed and may or may not get printed, how many by-elections are we from another General Election?

Not many. More than a handful and its game over. Labour too have some issues here, but the weight of numbers seems to be on the Conservative side

[Tre]

when the fuck am I getting a blue passport

[Mellsblue]

when the fuck am I getting a blue passport

Not long. Just need to ship them over from France.

[Digby]

Gove and Johnson are busy sending strident memos to No. 10, though none detailing their resignations for royally screwing up on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and John Redwood fresh from castigating the Treasury and the BoE for not being optimistic enough on Brexit has been busy telling his investors to move money out of the UK. But none of that is any actual progress.

There is that Parliament will now get a vote, which even though it'll not be much of a choice is a step in the right direction, and there seems some movement to accepting the executive shouldn't get Henry VIIIth powers, but agreeing not to make moves away from being democratic isn't the same as actually moving forwards. And really we still don't even know what they're trying to achieve

[Sandydragon]

Before you have a plan you have a vision. Brexit was a shout against the EU not really sold as an alternative we could see or check.

So there is no collective plan or vision. We are at the behest of the anti EU fanatics.

What is painful to consider is that there is probably a soft Brexit majority in the HOC. With cross party support, May could have marginalised the right and still delivered us leaving the EU, but without the hard Brexit pain. But that would require the authority and guts to tell her right wingers to wknd their necks in.

[Digby]

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

[Sandydragon]

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

[Digby]

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Everyone is an enemy of the people

[Mellsblue]

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

[Stom]

She'd have been castigated as an enemy of the people. But she's stuck in the classic political trap of considering her leadership as being what the country needs and that risking her political standing by marginalising the fanatics wouldn't be the best way she could serve the people

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

[Mellsblue]

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

We can do all of the above but it will be self-defeating. Hopefully, the grand plan is to have a hard Brexit but then have a bespoke relationship that moves us a substantial way back towards the status quo. Doing this will appease the nutters who want the Empire back - as the headlines will say we’ve left the EU - but we’ll still have close ties in trade, science, education etc etc. High immigration will continue as Boris and Gove don’t see it as a problem and if it’s back in ‘our’ control the govt of the day can say it’s what the country requires.
All we need now is for the UK to realise that £60billion (or whatever slightly lower figure they compromise on) is feck all over 20 years or so and for the EU stop money grabbing and moving the goal posts, and we can get on with the important bit of sorting out the stuff that will be important for people’s future.

[Stom]

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

We can do all of the above but it will be self-defeating. Hopefully, the grand plan is to have a hard Brexit but then have a bespoke relationship that moves us a substantial way back towards the status quo. Doing this will appease the nutters who want the Empire back - as the headlines will say we’ve left the EU - but we’ll still have close ties in trade, science, education etc etc. High immigration will continue as Boris and Gove don’t see it as a problem and if it’s back in ‘our’ control the govt of the day can say it’s what the country requires.
All we need now is for the UK to realise that £60billion (or whatever slightly lower figure they compromise on) is feck all over 20 years or so and for the EU stop money grabbing and moving the goal posts, and we can get on with the important bit of sorting out the stuff that will be important for people’s future.

You really think it's possible the EU will let the UK have a trade deal without freedom of movement? Not going to happen...

With the gouging of the UK's manufacturing industry over the past 2 decades, the UK doesn't actually have that much to offer the EU, tbh...

[Mellsblue]

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

We can do all of the above but it will be self-defeating. Hopefully, the grand plan is to have a hard Brexit but then have a bespoke relationship that moves us a substantial way back towards the status quo. Doing this will appease the nutters who want the Empire back - as the headlines will say we’ve left the EU - but we’ll still have close ties in trade, science, education etc etc. High immigration will continue as Boris and Gove don’t see it as a problem and if it’s back in ‘our’ control the govt of the day can say it’s what the country requires.
All we need now is for the UK to realise that £60billion (or whatever slightly lower figure they compromise on) is feck all over 20 years or so and for the EU stop money grabbing and moving the goal posts, and we can get on with the important bit of sorting out the stuff that will be important for people’s future.

You really think it's possible the EU will let the UK have a trade deal without freedom of movement? Not going to happen...

With the gouging of the UK's manufacturing industry over the past 2 decades, the UK doesn't actually have that much to offer the EU, tbh...

Did you not read the bit about immigration being nothing more than us just pretending it’s back in ‘our’ control for those who just read sensationalist headlines.

The UK will be one of if not the biggest importer of EU goods, it has plenty to offer when persuading the EU it really should sort out the trade deal. The EU couldn’t give a hoot about what we can export to them, they’d be delighted for it to be nothing. It’s how much they export to us. That we supposedly gouged out our manufacturing industry, when really we haven’t but that our manufacturing industry has matured and evolved, isn’t really an issue for the EU when agreeing a trade deal, other than the fact the trade surplus as % of GDP puts any leverage heavily in their court, as they’re far more interested in selling to us than buying from us.

[Sandydragon]

A strong leader could ride that out. After all, the Brexit referendum wasn’t clear on detail and there are a number of outcomes and ways to get there.

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. Who knows what Britain would look like a decade after Brexit. What I would definitely say is that the leave sides howlers such an controlling immigration and money for the NHS should be exposed and highlighted.

Mellsblue, I’m not sure that immigration was a definite point. There were two leave campaigns and Farage highlighted immigration a lot whilst boris talked about taking back control. The ballot paper didn’t say much beyond leave or stay so there remains plenty of wriggle room for a PM with the authority to weather some storms, except May doesn’t have that.

[Mellsblue]

Not that I disagree with you on the first point, but the campaigning on the Leave side was pretty clear that controlling immigration, ceasing contributions to the EU budget and taking back control of law making and law adjudication were the major issues. A soft Brexit would find it almost impossible to provide that without serious movement from the EU. Movement it would never provide.

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

Mellsblue, I’m not sure that immigration was a definite point. There were two leave campaigns and Farage highlighted immigration a lot whilst boris talked about taking back control. The ballot paper didn’t say much beyond leave or stay so there remains plenty of wriggle room for a PM with the authority to weather some storms, except May doesn’t have that.

Whether you wanted a Farage ‘we hate foreigners’ or a Boris ‘take back control’ immigration policy neither can be achieved by a ‘soft’ Brexit.
As for no options on the ballot paper. There is no option on the ballot paper for the GE other than for the candidates. You vote on how each party/candidate has campaigned.
To be honest, even if there was a soft Brexit/EFTA membership option you’d have to be an idiot to vote for it, I’d contend. You’d still be under the ECJ, have to accept EU regulations and harmonisations, and freedom movement but with absolutely no say, other than lobbying from the outside, on how any of that works. I can see why Europhiles now see it as the best option but to vote for it as part of a three way choice at referendum time would be idiotic.

[canta_brian]

Before we complete this process, and ignoring claims of misinformation from both sides, I think the government needs to adress the following:

"By March 2017 when Article 50 is due to be initiated, there will be approximately 563,000 new 18-year-old voters, with approximately a similar number of deaths, the vast majority (83 percent) amongst those over 65. Assuming those who voted stick with their decision and based on the age profile of the referendum result, that, alone, year on year adds more to the Remain majority. A Financial Times model indicated that simply based on that demographic profile, by 2021 the result would be reversed and that will be the case for the foreseeable future."

I don't have an FT account so can't see the modelling in full, but should the electorate really be stuck with the decisions of people who are already dead?

[Mellsblue]

Before we complete this process, and ignoring claims of misinformation from both sides, I think the government needs to adress the following:

"By March 2017 when Article 50 is due to be initiated, there will be approximately 563,000 new 18-year-old voters, with approximately a similar number of deaths, the vast majority (83 percent) amongst those over 65. Assuming those who voted stick with their decision and based on the age profile of the referendum result, that, alone, year on year adds more to the Remain majority. A Financial Times model indicated that simply based on that demographic profile, by 2021 the result would be reversed and that will be the case for the foreseeable future."

I don't have an FT account so can't see the modelling in full, but should the electorate really be stuck with the decisions of people who are already dead?

Possibly not. How often should we rerun the referendum? Every 1,000,000 dead people? Were you asking for a rerun of the 1975 referendum due to changing demographics? I’m sure the Lib Dem’s will stick with a pro-EU agenda, if they get in to power they can take us back in. The Conservatives may become pro-EU as the more liberal, younger MP’s come to the fore and the older grassroots die. The same goes for Labour if the Corbynistas lose power. Referenda (no more. please) should be due to public opinion, political parties moving with that opinion and subsequent general election results, not because a generation have died.

[canta_brian]

Before we complete this process, and ignoring claims of misinformation from both sides, I think the government needs to adress the following:

"By March 2017 when Article 50 is due to be initiated, there will be approximately 563,000 new 18-year-old voters, with approximately a similar number of deaths, the vast majority (83 percent) amongst those over 65. Assuming those who voted stick with their decision and based on the age profile of the referendum result, that, alone, year on year adds more to the Remain majority. A Financial Times model indicated that simply based on that demographic profile, by 2021 the result would be reversed and that will be the case for the foreseeable future."

I don't have an FT account so can't see the modelling in full, but should the electorate really be stuck with the decisions of people who are already dead?

Possibly not. How often should we rerun the referendum? Every 1,000,000 dead people? Were you asking for a rerun of the 1975 referendum due to changing demographics? I’m sure the Lib Dem’s will stick with a pro-EU agenda, if they get in to power they can take us back in. The Conservatives may become pro-EU as the more liberal, younger MP’s come to the fore and the older grassroots die. The same goes for Labour if the Corbynistas lose power. Referenda (no more. please) should be due to public opinion, political parties moving with that opinion and subsequent general election results, not because a generation have died.

I do see your point, but I think the answer for me on how often to look at the result is when it appears that the result might be reversed before the result is even able to be put into place.

It's more an indictment of referenda in general. As you say, please, never again.

[Mellsblue]

Before we complete this process, and ignoring claims of misinformation from both sides, I think the government needs to adress the following:

"By March 2017 when Article 50 is due to be initiated, there will be approximately 563,000 new 18-year-old voters, with approximately a similar number of deaths, the vast majority (83 percent) amongst those over 65. Assuming those who voted stick with their decision and based on the age profile of the referendum result, that, alone, year on year adds more to the Remain majority. A Financial Times model indicated that simply based on that demographic profile, by 2021 the result would be reversed and that will be the case for the foreseeable future."

I don't have an FT account so can't see the modelling in full, but should the electorate really be stuck with the decisions of people who are already dead?

Possibly not. How often should we rerun the referendum? Every 1,000,000 dead people? Were you asking for a rerun of the 1975 referendum due to changing demographics? I’m sure the Lib Dem’s will stick with a pro-EU agenda, if they get in to power they can take us back in. The Conservatives may become pro-EU as the more liberal, younger MP’s come to the fore and the older grassroots die. The same goes for Labour if the Corbynistas lose power. Referenda (no more. please) should be due to public opinion, political parties moving with that opinion and subsequent general election results, not because a generation have died.

It's more an indictment of referenda in general. As you say, please, never again.

Haha. On this I think any sensible person of any political persuasion can agree.

[Digby]

Also just 'cause there are more 18 year olds eligible to vote doesn't mean they will. Had the 18-24 year olds bothered to vote in the referendum we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with., but seemingly taking a short stroll to a polling station is too much for the absurdly lazy toerags

[belgarion]

Also just 'cause there are more 18 year olds eligible to vote doesn't mean they will. Had the 18-24 year olds bothered to vote in the referendum we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with., but seemingly taking a short stroll to a polling station is too much for the absurdly lazy toerags

Weren't so lazy 10mths later for the GE though were they?

[Digby]

Also just 'cause there are more 18 year olds eligible to vote doesn't mean they will. Had the 18-24 year olds bothered to vote in the referendum we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with., but seemingly taking a short stroll to a polling station is too much for the absurdly lazy toerags

Weren't so lazy 10mths later for the GE though were they?

Depends which report one goes off. The answer to that varies from somewhat to barely any difference. Either way they're less likely to vote.

[Mellsblue]

Also just 'cause there are more 18 year olds eligible to vote doesn't mean they will. Had the 18-24 year olds bothered to vote in the referendum we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with., but seemingly taking a short stroll to a polling station is too much for the absurdly lazy toerags

Weren't so lazy 10mths later for the GE though were they?

Depends which report one goes off. The answer to that varies from somewhat to barely any difference. Either way they're less likely to vote.

Anyone would think someone had offered them a shed load of cash.

[Sandydragon]

A hard brexit would, too, considering the figure they provided for the contributions was bull, we won't get to control immigration any more than now if we want to trade, and we won't get to change any laws that "benefit" individuals unless we want to sacrifice the trade again...

In fact, it is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, categorically, impossible to provide anything the leave campaign said leaving would get "us".

And the sooner someone actually says that loud and clear, we're going to be stuck going in political circles for years.

Mellsblue, I’m not sure that immigration was a definite point. There were two leave campaigns and Farage highlighted immigration a lot whilst boris talked about taking back control. The ballot paper didn’t say much beyond leave or stay so there remains plenty of wriggle room for a PM with the authority to weather some storms, except May doesn’t have that.

Whether you wanted a Farage ‘we hate foreigners’ or a Boris ‘take back control’ immigration policy neither can be achieved by a ‘soft’ Brexit.
As for no options on the ballot paper. There is no option on the ballot paper for the GE other than for the candidates. You vote on how each party/candidate has campaigned.
To be honest, even if there was a soft Brexit/EFTA membership option you’d have to be an idiot to vote for it, I’d contend. You’d still be under the ECJ, have to accept EU regulations and harmonisations, and freedom movement but with absolutely no say, other than lobbying from the outside, on how any of that works. I can see why Europhiles now see it as the best option but to vote for it as part of a three way choice at referendum time would be idiotic.

Bit that is a fundamental issue with the way the referendum was organised. There were multiple leave and remain parties but a binary choice. The options open to us (absurd or otherwise) weren’t binary so why make it so simplistic?

For future referendums those advocating change should be obliged to spell out exactly what people are voting for. At the moment though, I think the wriggle room May could have would be useful if she could find the authority to exploit it.