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

[StefanAVFC]

tee hee

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

tee hee

Hands up those that think even this is utter bollocks?

There is absolutely no way they haven't already been produced.

[Chindie]

There's a bunch of temps at the mint shoveling Brexit 50ps into the molten vat, their combined hubristic evil thrashing around like the T1000 as we speak.

[snowychap]

 

[NurembergVillan]

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Correct and the headline doesn't say what he claims it says either

You’re right. I missed out the ‘risk of’ part

Ok I admit it’s a decent sample size as far as surveys go but I still don’t see how a sample size of c4000 odd justifies the use of a headline as ‘Most Voters’.

Thats just my opinion but seems like I’m on my own with this one.

[cyrusr]

The more I continue to think about it, the more I think the GE is utterly pointless. [Sorry, long post]. 

The issue and deadlock is around Brexit rather than other issues, any GE will purely be around Brexit anyway. All arguments around budgets/staff/goods for all other departments are wholly dependant on Brexit in any event, it seems pretty pointless to discuss anything else, does it not? Rather than try and muddy the water, why not simply ask the country about the single issue and then move forward? It could be that a GE can be done after that, but then we could actually focus on other issues, as every professes they want. 

I still struggle with the arguments against a 2nd Referendum. I know the following arguments: -

1. People will say that "Leave" don't want it as they think that they will lose - daft reason IMO and shouldn't hold any weight; 
2. Concerns about the capacity of the population to understand the issues - we were trusted 1st time so there is precedent for it, irrespective of whether it is true or not; 
3. It won't actually clear up the position - it might cause more havoc, possibly, but we are in deadlock so something has to give;  
4. The "will of the people has spoken" - this irks me the most, given that we have already had 1 GE since then, and likely another, people are perfectly entitled to change their view, refine their wishes. Parliament has had a number of opportunities to change its view on "the deal". 

Is there a genuine reason why it should be a GE rather than a 2nd Referendum? The only reason I can see is that this government are utterly against it and a GE is needed to change the make up so there is a majority for a 2nd referendum; which in itself is completely backwards but hey ho, sometimes that is needed... 

If we assume that this deal is put to the people as the proposed "leave deal", if that fails, why not give the country the option to show what it wishes? At least then there will be something for the Tories/Labour/whoever to justify the position. A GE is only likely to muddy the water further as most will be voting on Brexit anyway with most likely a further hung parliament. 

If there was a consensus of a deal to leave, then you could do it as a simple "Leave on the government's deal or remain", however I suspect that would not get the support of Labour and their own ideas around what the deal should be. Given the divisions, I cannot foresee anything this simple being agreed (unless Labour concede that they will never get to present their version of Brexit and campaign for remain). 

It therefore leads me to think that we need a fuller question to put to everyone, in particular if there isn't a consensus for a particular course (which seems likely). What if the 2nd referendum was something like this: - 

 

1. This Government has agreed a deal for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Do you:

a) Agree that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union based on this deal; or

b) Do not agree that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union based on this deal.

 

2.  If the majority of people do not agree that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union based on this Government’s deal, what would your wish for parliament to do? In order of preference would you (1st, 2nd, 3rd): -

a) Seek to leave the European Union with a deal with less ties to the European Union or without any deal agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union;

b) Seek a deal with closer ties to the European Union, such as remaining a part of the Customs Union; or

c) Revoke the Brexit process and remain a part of the European Union.

 

Question 1 should be a simply majority. If the majority is 1.a), then fine, we leave with the consequences of it and be done with it. Whilst don't agree with it, at least there is something to actually work with. We can all move onto the next stage. 

Question 2 could be a simple majority on 1st choice, and if no majority, it could be weighted at least with 2nd and 3rd options. The highest score would then at least give everyone an idea of where we go if we do not agree with this deal. I think it does need to be a 3 option choice, as there remains a number of different ways we can move forward with it, and this deal is the only one.  

Whilst I do not believe that option 2.a) should ever be an option, I think, sadly, the action of Johnson and Farage have implemented it in people's mind that is in the benefit of the country. The damage has already been done and cannot be rolled back from IMO. If that option was not on any ballot then there would be suggestions that the referendum is unfair and should be discounted. It has the possibility to cause even further chaos without it (though that would probably still be less chaos than under a no deal brexit anyway).

This would at least give some form of guidance as to what the country actually wants and actually either stop the whole process or move onto the next stage. There would at least be some clarity. 

What are people's views, does this work? What is wrong with the proposition, anything right with it?! To be honest, even whilst writing this, I do wonder whether this "deal" should be included in question 2 as it may be unfairly ruled out in a straight yes/no. Could the 2nd question simply be the only question with 4 options instead? 

I am genuinely intrigued by what all sides think as unless there is some level of agreement across the board, it will never be seen as fair. I suppose that is the problem, no one wants to give on their position and the government appear not to be even wanting to discuss another vote as it does not suite them. This leads us to the fundamental problem with politics, rather than doing what is best for the country, politicians only do what is best for themselves/those that fund them. 

[bickster]

29 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

You’re right. I missed out the ‘risk of’ part

No, you are still missing the major point, it is not to achieve Brexit, it is to achieve their desired outcome over Brexit. It is both sides of the line, leavers and remainers. Hence why you haven't understood the title and the article

[snowychap]

41 minutes ago, cyrusr said:

The more I continue to think about it, the more I think the GE is utterly pointless.

...

Some interesting points and suggestions.

I'll take a closer look and try to respond later but it's obvious that there's no easy answer and no clear solution that can't fail.

I still take issues with a second referendum (though I concede it may be a way out of the impasse - if that isn't changed with the WAB passing in future) and one of the biggest issues I have is that it wouldn't be done properly this time round either. It would be rushed/fudged and probably put us in a similarly divided position some months down the line.

[Vive_La_Villa]

48 minutes ago, bickster said:

No, you are still missing the major point, it is not to achieve Brexit, it is to achieve their desired outcome over Brexit. It is both sides of the line, leavers and remainers. Hence why you haven't understood the title and the article

Sorry my bad. Still think the headline is misleading. 

Well in that case it seems both sides have something in common. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Sorry my bad. Still think the headline is misleading. 

Well in that case it seems both sides have something in common. 

Without seeing the fieldwork and the questions, I'm imagining that the result has something to do with the way the question has been worded or the way the questions have been arranged.

I think the actuality is far removed from the research.

It is also noticeable that these people haven't said they'd be responsible for the violence, that is a completely different thing. These people are just saying they'd just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well!"

[snowychap]

An important take on the WAB:

Adam Tucker: A First Critical Look at the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill

Quote

In this post, I make a preliminary attempt at assessing the provision made in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill – or WAB – for the scrutiny of the legislative powers which it delegates to the executive.  My conclusions are not positive.  The scrutiny procedures it seeks to enact are inadequate – so inadequate that it would be a constitutional mistake for Parliament to approve this aspect of the WAB without significant amendment.

...

The scrutiny provisions in the WAB are comparable to – indeed they are partly modelled on – the arrangements initially proposed for delegated legislation under EUWA as originally published.  But in that original form, those proposals did not survive parliamentary scrutiny.  They were widely condemned as an inappropriate transfer of power to the executive, emphatically criticised by multiple parliamentary committee inquiries, and ultimately amended.  In other words, the scrutiny arrangements in WAB are an attempt to revisit an approach to scrutinising delegated legislation which Parliament has already recently rejected and amended.   Enacting them would be a regrettable step backwards in terms of scrutiny of executive legislative activity, and would contradict the considered Parliamentary verdict on this issue elaborated during the passage of the 2018 Act.

... full blog on link

This seems to me like a conscious decision to try and roll it back to the procedure that parliament didn't favour. Another reason why they were trying to rush it through and another reason why it is important to scrutinise and challenge legislation properly.

[blandy]

4 hours ago, cyrusr said:

...I still struggle with the arguments against a 2nd Referendum. I know the following arguments: -

1. People will say that "Leave" don't want it as they think that they will lose - daft reason IMO and shouldn't hold any weight; 
2. Concerns about the capacity of the population to understand the issues - we were trusted 1st time so there is precedent for it, irrespective of whether it is true or not; 
3. It won't actually clear up the position - it might cause more havoc, possibly, but we are in deadlock so something has to give;  
4. The "will of the people has spoken" - this irks me the most, given that we have already had 1 GE since then, and likely another, people are perfectly entitled to change their view, refine their wishes. Parliament has had a number of opportunities to change its view on "the deal". 

Just an extract quoted, but I guess a lot of people are pondering the whole thing (Brexit I mean). It's like trying to get the ingredients out of a cake - it's more or less impossible, or it's like the start of a Rubik's cube - every move is multi-dimensional and the end outcome is neither in sight, other than as some sort of dream, or apparent after each move.

It started off, for me at least as something I could look at and initially suspect "it looks like Leave will win" and then think, OK, based on what people said, probably go with some sort of Norway + outcome. At the time (and even now, still) that sort of seemed like a tally with broadly what people were saying - a soft-ish "only just" Brexit reflecting and "only just" vote to leave.

As the tories and May went on there stubborn way, with their arbitrary red lines, it was (to me) clear they wouldn't get what they wanted. It was absolutely clear there would be no "no deal" in march, and then June and that May was toast. I might have got lucky predicting all that, but it was (to me) utterly logical given the circumstance. It was wholly predictable.

Since Johnson's come in, with behaviours less predictable, more hap-hazard and more dishonest, it's been harder to predict. I was certain he was trying to get a deal, trying to use a no-deal threat and election threat to get the EU and MPs to vote on his deal, with him hoping that a tweaked deal would get through. I think got that right, too, by luck or judgement.

Now all that was not about my preference, or what I thought what should happen, just what seemed inevitable.

But right now, the logic has more or less ended. It's harder to see the way ahead that will happen. We know what the Lib Dems and SNP want - no Brexit at all. We know the tories have pretty much thrown their weight behind just any kind of leave at all, just to say they did it. They mostly don't even say anymore that they think it will be "good", just not as bad as no deal. Will they come to their senses? I doubt it. They either want an election or a deal to go through, but don't know how to get it.

Labour doesn't want an election, because they'll lose badly, they don't have an actual, credible, view on Brexit - Remain or Leave, so they are just sort of winging it, trying not to acquiesce with a Tory Brexit, so they don't get the blame down the line. The DUP have got the hump with everyone. No change there then.

I suppose the most likely thing is that the EU will effectively force the issue. While not wanting to have no deal, and not wanting to "interfere" in our national mess, they could chivy us along a bit via being more forceful about what they allow. They can't tell us to hold a Ref and they can't tell us to hold an election. But they can make an extension much more conditional, or they could make an extension much longer than "we" asked for. What I mean is, kind of "look, hold a ref or a GE and sort yourselves out, then come back to us, we'll wait" or alternatively "look, hold a ref or a GE in the next 2 months and we'll grant an extension for that, but that's it, no more until you've decided on what you want".

Like Snowy, I think another ref is nowhere near a good solution, it's not predictable and it's got serious flaws as well as the tories being dead against and Labour (currently) also being dead against, though they shouldn't be.

The least unlikely for me is that the tories don't get their election (nor should they), they try again to get their deal through, as was happening until Johnson pulled it, and then it gets taken from there - either the UK saying "right, can we have a CU version of the deal" and the EU saying Yes, or the current version only slightly changed gets put back to the EU and they say Yes to that.

Parliament taking over again and going for a ref can only happen if Labour get their act together. There's been no sign of that so far, but we can hope.

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

tee hee

Nothing to do with Brexit this.

Long long ago when I was in college, we had a jolly bus outing to the mint. The pound coin hadn’t been released, but they had been minted. They literally had bins of them, big steel oil drum style bins of them. The person doing the tour said if we could pick them up we could have them. We all smiled and moved on.

Later, my mate said he’d been surprised we were just allowed to take money home, so suspected it wasn’t real.

29 kids heard ‘if you can pick them up you can have them’ and one kid had heard ‘you can have whatever you can pick up’. He had about 20 on him. Not searched on the way out.

 

[snowychap]

From the pdf linked in the above tweet (worth reading all of it as it's only 7 pages):

Quote

Conclusion
12. The WAB may technically be in limbo but, even when it is released from purgatory, its passage will be far from serene. We can expect multiple challenges and amendments and its journey will take much longer than any truncated period allocated under the Government’s or Opposition’s timetable.
The future impact of the WAB in terms of increasing Executive power and reducing Parliamentary sovereignty and scrutiny cannot be underestimated. Rights and protections will be at the whim of whoever the Prime Minister of the day is. The constitutional wrangles and fallout are far from over.
 

 

[snowychap]

Edit: The background is not my choice.

Edited October 26, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

 

[Xela]

On 25/10/2019 at 11:50, bickster said:

Hands up those that think even this is utter bollocks?

There is absolutely no way they haven't already been produced.

They're missing a trick. 

They could sell these incorrect 50p pieces for more money on ebay! Coin collectors will be all over them

[LondonLax]

They will be collectors items in the future, like the ‘Inverted Jenny’ postage stamps. 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Xela said:

They're missing a trick. 

They could sell these incorrect 50p pieces for more money on ebay! Coin collectors will be all over them

There's nothing incorrect about them, they don't have a leaving date on them as far as I remember. They were made with the very first leaving date in mind, they've been minted for absolutely ages, they just aren't being put into circulation yet.

So Javid as I said was talking bollocks no poduction has been halted