The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Excuse my ignorance,  but what's wrong with Corbyn? 

he's a wet lettuce, he's weak and wishy washy leading me to believe that he wouldnt actually achieve half of the things he says (whilst at the same time i dont think he actually says that much)

opposition is easier and still he's not very good at it

[cyrusr]

19 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

he's a wet lettuce, he's weak and wishy washy leading me to believe that he wouldnt actually achieve half of the things he says (whilst at the same time i dont think he actually says that much)

opposition is easier and still he's not very good at it

To say he has been underwhelming in this whole process is an understatement. The fact that that he doesn't seem to be able to get a majority in the polls in spite of the Tories being in complete and utter shambles to me show that the public simply don't trust him to lead the country. 

As the majority of Labour MPs appear to be saying, if he changed the policy to seeking a further referendum, either after a newly negotiated deal or not, he would get into government almost instantly. Just feels like apathetic opposition. Both main parties have really shown that all they care about is themselves, not the country.

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Excuse my ignorance,  but what's wrong with Corbyn? 

He's an old school leftie, the kind that doesn't really exist anymore (for better and worse). That will rub a lot of the UK up the wrong way right off the bat, this is a country that likes to vote Tory. His party is divided, between generally older backbench MPs who traditionally came from similar viewpoints to Corbyn, and newer influential figures born of the Blair era who moved away from the old left. He hasn't successfully healed that divide (and never really tried to), and it's only died down after he managed to secure a greatly unexpected result at the last General Election. He doesn't handle media well as he's not the slick charismatic personality that has dominated politics in the modern era, and again doesn't help himself by not taking criticism well either and not engaging with media to any great extent. In fairness he has also faced an unprecedentedly hostile media landscape, with even left leaning outlets being extremely set against him. He also has issues with policies and views - he's anti-Israel in general, which has lead to him associating with unsavoury figures to say the least, in a student politics dichotomy kind of way. And he struggles with dissent in the party, whipping the party and then purging dissenters quickly despite being a dissenting voice himself for 30 years.

When it comes to Brexit he has pursued a policy of deliberate ambiguity which irritates Remain voters. The Labour position is very nebulous, with them trying to marry accepting Brexit with also getting a deal that offers as many benefits of no Brexit as possible, whilst offering very little in detail of how. Corbyn's past is Eurosceptic, in the old school way of a student leftist opposed to capitalist enterprises. Despite that he campaigned for Remain and was one of the more active campaigners around in sheer numbers of events he attended, which was basically ignored. Most infamously this culminated in a TV interview where he claimed to support the EU 7/10, which either is viewed as ill-advised honesty, as in such a divisive debate 7/10 was seen as begrudging support, or just a lie to appeal across the board.

He has made various stupid moves with Brexit, such as whipping the party to support invocation of Article 50, which is one of the dumbest moves parliament has ever made, and he's lead fairly feeble attempts to oppose the government on Brexit. That is mitigated a little for some because of the strange nature of Brexit, cutting through left and right wing paradigms meaning Labour has had to try to walk through the raindrops, being careful to not commit to much either way through fear of alienating Leave voters in the main.

And finally his support rubs people up the wrong way. Because he is a different kind of politician to the usual fare of recent years, he appeals to some people on a fundamental level, and because he's faced opposition from all quarters, some of which was just silly (the anti-semitism thing was absurd), that's formed a siege mentality in his support, which in turn is mocked and derided.

He's not a good leader. He has some good policies, his Brexit position is a mess, he can't handle media or criticism, he is struggles to control dissent, appears hypocritical, etc etc. He's not as bad as many will have you believe, equally his support is crazy if they think he's PM material.

[bickster]

I think we reached Peak Corbyn in the snap General Election. That was his zenith

[villa4europe]

15 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

To say he has been underwhelming in this whole process is an understatement. The fact that that he doesn't seem to be able to get a majority in the polls in spite of the Tories being in complete and utter shambles to me show that the public simply don't trust him to lead the country. 

As the majority of Labour MPs appear to be saying, if he changed the policy to seeking a further referendum, either after a newly negotiated deal or not, he would get into government almost instantly. Just feels like apathetic opposition. Both main parties have really shown that all they care about is themselves, not the country.

agree with that, i think if he offered genuine opposition to May and said 2nd referendum then he would get a lot of support from people who probably don't like him, his approach of we will do the same but better and then not telling anyone what "better" actually means carries absolutely no weight

cameron bought the GE with a brexit referendum that he didnt believe in, corbyn wont do the same

[Genie]

The MP for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher, Conservative) is very pro-Brexit in his post today. Probably explains why he didn’t bother to reply to my email then.

Quote

Following last night’s historic vote in Parliament, Tamworth MP Christopher Pincher has told the Herald that government needs to get on with delivering the EU referendum result.
Mr Pincher said: “The House of Commons has decided to reject the withdrawal deal, so we now must look again at how to deliver the referendum result the country - and Tamworth - voted for in 2016.
“It may not be easy. We face an erratic and out of control Speaker, John Bercow, obsessed with his place in notoriety. He will do anything to frustrate Brexit.  And we have a Labour Party which is playing politics with Brexit and that is damaging our chances of leaving the EU.  
“I believe the public just want to get on with it so we get out of the EU and control our borders, our laws and our money. I voted to leave the EU and am determined to honour the result.  
“I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people, whether they voted to leave or to remain, want that too. So let us get on with it and get a sensible deal that delivers the referendum result.”

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Genie

[Wainy316]

Pincher is just horrible

[snowychap]

Anyone who uses the phrase 'our borders, our laws and our money' (or any variation of it) is an utter cock just churning out a meaningless phrase.

See also 'move on' and/or '(just) get on with it'.

Edited January 16, 2019 by snowychap

[Genie]

Not sure why he felt the need to get personal about the speaker in an address to his constituents about Brexit. Shows the level of the man.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

Not sure why he felt the need to get personal about the speaker in an address to his constituents about Brexit. Shows the level of the man.

It's a big beef for lots of his type.

A large number of Tory leave MPs absolutely abhor him.

Edited January 16, 2019 by snowychap

[desensitized43]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a big beef for lots of his type.

A large number of Tory leave MPs absolutely abhor him.

Yep. It plays very nicely into the narrative that it's some "metropolitan elitist" bogeymen that are trying to "frustrate brexit and the will of the people". Lots of foaming at the mouth racists will lap it up.

[ml1dch]

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, Skruff said:

Excuse my ignorance, what was the idea behind the brexit in the first place? Less immigration? The media and politician surely has to take responsibility for this royal **** up. Is it fair to call it that? 

I'm curious to what will happen next, now that you've said no to the latest trade deal. 

The hard exit prognosis looks quite bleek to say the least. 

It's complicated. You need to understand the context of Brexit.

The UK has an odd relationship with the EU. It has never really seen itself as 'part' of Europe and long has traded on the rhetoric of exceptionalism born of memories of Empire and the World Wars. The EU was in conflict with that, the UK being part of a bigger thing, benefiting from it etc. The UK also kept Europe at arms length, with it having numerous opt outs and exceptions to its membership.

The UK also has a habit of blaming Europe for problems. Governments positioned themselves as slightly at odds with Europe, pointed to Brussels when issues arises, etc. And the press has long hated Europe, pushing dumb lies (that were bizarrely effective - go spend a few hours in any pub across the land discussing the EU and you'll hear the same daft stories about bendy bananas and cucumbers etc) and faceless bureaucracy bringing Great Britain low rhetoric. Plus bankrupt sovereignty arguments and superstate conspiracies. This goes on for decades.

That tied into a lack of understanding of the EU. All the public heard was politicians whinging about Europe, and press berating Europe. They didn't hear how the EU worked, what the EU did that benefited the country, what it did that benefited them. 

Then the wheels fell off. In short order the Eastern bloc joined, the financial crisis hit and austerity was pursued. Struggling communities that had been battered by years in the political doldrums got hit again by the economy going off the deep end, politicians pursuing misguided (at best) policies to mitigate that served only to further harm huge demographics already struggling, and seeing/hearing an increase of more overtly different communities arriving.

That lead to an rise in Eurosceptic parties and 'nationalists', particularly UKIP, which threatened the Tory party as they share many positions, whilst also exacerbating long lived divides in the Tories. David Cameron becomes PM and offers a referendum to put the issue to bed, convinced he'd win. 

That opened Pandora's box and Brexit Britain became a land of milk and honey where everyone benefits for no loss of anything. Failing NHS? That's the EU's fault. No EU, NHS rises from the ashes. No jobs? That's the EU's fault. No EU, all the jobs flood in. Too many brown people? That's the EU's fault. No EU and they'll vanish. Etc etc. The people telling you this is nonsense? That's the EU's fault, they've infiltrated the elite to lie to you, and we're tired of 'experts' anyway. Britain is Great after all, we won the war, we ran the world, we don't need to kowtow to countries we saved. Etc etc.

Brexit promised the moon on a stick. And lots of people who didn't know better, who felt things couldn't get worse, who hated the government, who hated the haves, who hated the educated, who had been ignored and downtrodden for decades, fell for it.

After that the country has spent nearly 3 years tearing itself apart as politicians try to reconcile the moon on a stick No vote with the cold reality of modern international trade relationships. All whilst a PM is hellbent on taking the chance to get rid of things she dislikes about the EU (she abhors foreigners), a faction of Tory MPs is dying to get No Deal for completely mental ideological reasons and/or fettering their own pockets, other MPs are keen just to line their own pockets at any cost, other MPs are too scared of losing their seat to engage their brain, other MPs are too scared about climbing the greasy pole to defy their leadership or the referendum result, and so on.

It's a **** mess.

As for what happens now... No Deal happens if we don't have something agreed or an extension/revocation agreed by the end of March. Which is a disaster. Unless May's red lines change, her deal will not be altered and it's unlikely they will while she still had any say in it and it's at little risk of being ousted. And revocation won't happen either. A second referendum seems to be the easiest way to overcome parliamentary deadlock, as bad an idea as it is regardless, but that's it's own mess. There's 3 choices realistically, but one of them just got rejected by the biggest margin in history, and 3 way referendum questions are messy. All the old problems still exist from the last referendum - people don't get it, they're still pissed off, they reject off hand the reality of Brexit, they resent being asked again etc etc - and a No vote again would strengthen the hand of No Deal, even though it's insane.

There's not a perfect answer.

[Awol]

Saw the constitutional wallah Vernon Bogdanor in TV & he broke it down very well.

Only statute can overturn statute, so if the HoC passed a motion calling for a 2nd referendum that would have to be translated into a bill, go through committee and then be voted on in the HoC to become law, an Act of Parliament. That’s 6-8 months minimum but probably longer if Leavers oppose it in committee to delay process, deciding the question alone would be debated for months. 

To enable that, Art.50 would need extending, but can only go until July maximum when the new E.U. Parliamentary elections take place. They don’t want the UK hanging around and mucking that up even more than the tsunami of continental populist MEPs heading there shortly.

So the timing is a real problem for those chasing a 2nd ref’. 

Far as I can see that leaves only two deliverable options: leave on the 29th as currently established in law, or, permanently revoke Art.50 & repeal EU withdrawal Act, pretend the referendum never happened, & hope the public shrugs it off... lol. 

 

 

[villa89]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

So he doesn't want No Deal, he doesn't want No Brexit and he doesn't want the only deal the EU are going to offer us.  What's your solution Jezza?

His problem is that he wants to be prime minister so to get votes he should really be supporting the remain campaign and piling pressure on the government. However his own personal view (I suspect) is that he is happy with a No Deal brexit and wants a total separation of the UK and EU. 

As an aside I heard a good point from an economist yesterday, no matter what way you look at Brexit the british economy will be worse off. So essentially the UK are passing laws that will make the country poorer and make their own people's standard of living worse. Odd. 

[Wainy316]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's complicated. You need to understand the context of Brexit.

The UK has an odd relationship with the EU. It has never really seen itself as 'part' of Europe and long has traded on the rhetoric of exceptionalism born of memories of Empire and the World Wars. The EU was in conflict with that, the UK being part of a bigger thing, benefiting from it etc. The UK also kept Europe at arms length, with it having numerous opt outs and exceptions to its membership.

The UK also has a habit of blaming Europe for problems. Governments positioned themselves as slightly at odds with Europe, pointed to Brussels when issues arises, etc. And the press has long hated Europe, pushing dumb lies (that were bizarrely effective - go spend a few hours in any pub across the land discussing the EU and you'll hear the same daft stories about bendy bananas and cucumbers etc) and faceless bureaucracy bringing Great Britain low rhetoric. Plus bankrupt sovereignty arguments and superstate conspiracies. This goes on for decades.

That tied into a lack of understanding of the EU. All the public heard was politicians whinging about Europe, and press berating Europe. They didn't hear how the EU worked, what the EU did that benefited the country, what it did that benefited them. 

Then the wheels fell off. In short order the Eastern bloc joined, the financial crisis hit and austerity was pursued. Struggling communities that had been battered by years in the political doldrums got hit again by the economy going off the deep end, politicians pursuing misguided (at best) policies to mitigate that served only to further harm huge demographics already struggling, and seeing/hearing an increase of more overtly different communities arriving.

That lead to an rise in Eurosceptic parties and 'nationalists', particularly UKIP, which threatened the Tory party as they share many positions, whilst also exacerbating long lived divides in the Tories. David Cameron becomes PM and offers a referendum to put the issue to bed, convinced he'd win. 

That opened Pandora's box and Brexit Britain became a land of milk and honey where everyone benefits for no loss of anything. Failing NHS? That's the EU's fault. No EU, NHS rises from the ashes. No jobs? That's the EU's fault. No EU, all the jobs flood in. Too many brown people? That's the EU's fault. No EU and they'll vanish. Etc etc. The people telling you this is nonsense? That's the EU's fault, they've infiltrated the elite to lie to you, and we're tired of 'experts' anyway. Britain is Great after all, we won the war, we ran the world, we don't need to kowtow to countries we saved. Etc etc.

Brexit promised the moon on a stick. And lots of people who didn't know better, who felt things couldn't get worse, who hated the government, who hated the haves, who hated the educated, who had been ignored and downtrodden for decades, fell for it.

After that the country has spent nearly 3 years tearing itself apart as politicians try to reconcile the moon on a stick No vote with the cold reality of modern international trade relationships. All whilst a PM is hellbent on taking the chance to get rid of things she dislikes about the EU (she abhors foreigners), a faction of Tory MPs is dying to get No Deal for completely mental ideological reasons and/or fettering their own pockets, other MPs are keen just to line their own pockets at any cost, other MPs are too scared of losing their seat to engage their brain, other MPs are too scared about climbing the greasy pole to defy their leadership or the referendum result, and so on.

It's a **** mess.

As for what happens now... No Deal happens if we don't have something agreed or an extension/revocation agreed by the end of March. Which is a disaster. Unless May's red lines change, her deal will not be altered and it's unlikely they will while she still had any say in it and it's at little risk of being ousted. And revocation won't happen either. A second referendum seems to be the easiest way to overcome parliamentary deadlock, as bad an idea as it is regardless, but that's it's own mess. There's 3 choices realistically, but one of them just got rejected by the biggest margin in history, and 3 way referendum questions are messy. All the old problems still exist from the last referendum - people don't get it, they're still pissed off, they reject off hand the reality of Brexit, they resent being asked again etc etc - and a No vote again would strengthen the hand of No Deal, even though it's insane.

There's not a perfect answer.

When I'm trying to articulate my argument to people I'm just going to read directly from this post in future.

[bickster]

Dominic Grieve just tabled a motion paving the way for a referendum on the UK's future relationship with the EU.

That'll at least force Corbyn off his imaginary fence

[villa89]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

Dominic Grieve just tabled a motion paving the way for a referendum on the UK's future relationship with the EU.

I don't see how you could finalise the wording for that referendum, it's too vague. Better off set a deadline to conclude an all-party agreed deal with the EU, publish it and then have a referendum on that deal. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by villa89

[villa4europe]

skimming over the news i thought the first is an outright 2nd referendum on us leaving and the second is a referendum letting the public vote on the wording of the deal

the 2nd one definitely wont happen

the general response on twitter seems to be "respect the will of the people" and its anti democracy, i maintain what we are getting is not what we were sold, the "anti democracy" stuff came 2 years ago during the campaign

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, villa89 said:

I don't see how you could finalise the wording for that referendum, it's too vague. Better off set a deadline to conclude an all-party agreed deal with the EU, publish it and then have a referendum on that deal. 

I can see the flaw in your plan