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

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

What more can Labour do to prevent a No Deal Brexit, specifically? 

That’s a different issue from what Catweazle wants but 1. Work cross party, as Yvette Cooper has to take no deal off the options list, to then, in the new less mad situation, do consensus majority rules actions and go for, for example, a non T.May red lined version, eg customs union, single market Brexit. That’s not my preference, but it’s an alternative that would get through and solve the border issue with Ireland. There’s loafs of options one you get May out the way.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

That’s a different issue from what Catweazle wants but 1. Work cross party, as Yvette Cooper has to take no deal off the options list, to then, in the new less mad situation, do consensus majority rules actions and go for, for example, a non T.May red lined version, eg customs union, single market Brexit. That’s not my preference, but it’s an alternative that would get through and solve the border issue with Ireland. There’s loafs of options one you get May out the way.

They're already doing all that stuff. They whipped members to back the Cooper amendment, and will be voting in the way you'd expect in the series of amendments next week (assuming May allows them to go to a vote). They have pushed a less-red-lined version repeatedly, including a customs union, in Corbyn's letter to May. 

The government controls the timetable, and there will only be one or two more opportunities for Corbyn or anyone else in Labour to propose legislation or amendments. 'Consensus majority rules actions' require large numbers of government backbenchers to vote with them, which has not been at all forthcoming so far. It's unlikely to start now. 

[HanoiVillan]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

They can't do that, it doesn't fit any of the myriad of unicorns (+1) that was agreed at the conference as policy.

Slightly connected: I think it was in today's Daily Mirror that a poll was published suggesting that 76% of Labour voters in the NW want a second referendum.

It's probably true that vast quantities of Labour members want a second referendum. Sadly for them, it isn't going to happen in this parliament, because there is no majority for it. 

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's probably true that vast quantities of Labour members want a second referendum. Sadly for them, it isn't going to happen in this parliament, because there is no majority for it. 

Yes, I agree (currently) but that doesn’t bode well for the canonisation of Jezza. When the country turns to shit, he'll still be seen as an appeaser, a quizzling, a collaborator because that really what he is. He'll be remembered by many of its membership as someone who did nothing much to oppose Brexit and when he did what his people actually wanted him to do, he did it rather half heartedly when it was too late

PS I said voters not members, the members are already dwindling, as are the voters

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They're already doing all that stuff. They whipped members to back the Cooper amendment, and will be voting in the way you'd expect in the series of amendments next week (assuming May allows them to go to a vote). They have pushed a less-red-lined version repeatedly, including a customs union, in Corbyn's letter to May. 

The government controls the timetable, and there will only be one or two more opportunities for Corbyn or anyone else in Labour to propose legislation or amendments. 'Consensus majority rules actions' require large numbers of government backbenchers to vote with them, which has not been at all forthcoming so far. It's unlikely to start now. 

Obviously Yvette Cooper and other Labour (and Tory etc.) MPs are already doing the stuff I mentioned they were doing, and it needs to carry on. These individual MPs doing it is not, though, “Labour” doing it. More recently Catweazle has started to sometimes follow the path they’ve taken in so much as whipping goes. The letter and the labour line on not “the” but “a” customs union was just more game playing. “Our unicorn not yours”.  Less mad, but not by much.

2nd paragraph I agree.So many chances have been missed, decisions ducked and the lesson needs to be learned. Grasp the mettle. In my opinion there will be an extension, no deal won’t happen, but the competent MPs like Cooper, Starmer etc need to be given almost the complete control of labour on it, to if you like officially abandon the unicorn and work, as labour Brexit policy, cross party to sideline May and the throbbers and reverse out of this dead end she led us down.

[bickster]

8 hours ago, Chindie said:

I think Corbyn and Brexit is more complicated than many make it.

He's certainly an old Eurosceptic, though coming from a different angle to the loons in the Tory party and associates. The EU increasingly was openly capitalist endeavour and as a fairly left leaning back bencher he didn't like it and it didn't really matter he didn't like it.

As leader that seems to have changed. During the campaign, despite being slated for not being visible, IIRC he was one of the most active figures in Remain, making considerably more appearances than May did during her walking through the raindrops phase. He's also tabled and supported efforts to try to soften Brexit in Parliament. Labour's most recent position was one the EU actually appeared to think was more useful to discuss than banging their head against May any longer.

He's also had the obvious issue that Brexit chops through traditional political dynamics, and that ultimately he wants to be elected. He and the Party has felt it has had to do their own storm jive to appear to accept the referendum and also to try to minimise it's impact. Brexit might help with being elected cynically, if the Tories get left holding the can it strengthens Labour's chances, which obviously will have been considered.

So I think it's difficult to say he's an out and out Brexiteer. I think as leader he's seen the EU is more important than he previously had bothered to know, and has had to shift, together with trying not to completely push away either side of the debate, both of which he'll need to win an election.

Wow, that's some revisionist nonsense right there 

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's probably true that vast quantities of Labour members want a second referendum. Sadly for them, it isn't going to happen in this parliament, because there is no majority for it. 

What is the thing that is going to happen in this Parliament, given that there appears to be no majority for anything?

[LondonLax]

10 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

What more can Labour do to prevent a No Deal Brexit, specifically? 

You’ve put forward this idea that Corbyn is powerless a few times and it is true that he does not lead the majority party in parliament. 

However, the party that are currently in power are very divided whilst public opinion seems to overwhelmingly support a public vote if not a rejection of Brexit all together  

That situation should give him some power to shape the debate and set the direction if he were of a mind to sieze it. 

Unfortunately he’s been a massive disappointment for progressive remain voters and the idea that he’s some sort of hostage to fortune is a pretty weak defence when considering what is at stake  

 

[Chindie]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Wow, that's some revisionist nonsense right there 

Feel free to dismantle it. It should be easy enough.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Feel free to dismantle it. It should be easy enough.

I will later. Busy right now though

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

What is the thing that is going to happen in this Parliament, given that there appears to be no majority for anything?

That's a fair question. Sadly my answer is a cop-out: I don't know. We will know more based on the outcome of the votes next week (or if they are even held). 

59 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You’ve put forward this idea that Corbyn is powerless a few times and it is true that he does not lead the majority party in parliament. 

However, the party that are currently in power are very divided whilst public opinion seems to overwhelmingly support a public vote if not a rejection of Brexit all together  

That situation should give him some power to shape the debate and set the direction if he were of a mind to sieze it. 

Unfortunately he’s been a massive disappointment for progressive remain voters and the idea that he’s some sort of hostage to fortune is a pretty weak defence when considering what is at stake  

I'm not putting forward an idea that Corbyn is powerless; he has (a lot of, but not complete by any means) power to dictate the direction of party policy, and decisions about what to whip are obviously important. However, his power is strictly limited. The Leader of the Opposition is not a particularly powerful position in the British political system. There are essentially two things that the LOTO can do: 1) propose and amend legislation, at certain points in the parliamentary timetable and 2) call a vote of no confidence. Labour have proposed and amended lots of legislation, within the framework set out at their party conference last year. It's true that none of that has been in support of a second referendum, or of revoking article 50, but the first hasn't happened because it's pointless except as a signalling device when there are 30 Labour MP's who will vote against it however they are whipped and a much smaller number of Conservatives interested in defying their whip. The second has been tried and failed, and is now further from possibility than ever since there are now a dozen more 'confidence' votes than there were when the vote was taken. The British political system is set up in such a way that if a government can hold the support of a majority of the House, there isn't much the opposition can do about it. 

On your second point, the party in power are divided on some things, and very much not divided on others. They are divided on May's WA, for example, but they are not divided on the wisdom of a second referendum. They are divided about Theresa May's performance, but not divided about whether they have confidence in the government. The important point here is that the ways they are divided have not yet - and possibly/probably won't - created any openings to take control of the Parliamentary timetable or force an election. 

On the question of public support, you are flatly wrong that there is 'overwhelming' support for anything. There is support for a second referendum now in a clear majority of polls which ask the question alone, but when it is placed amongst a range of possible Brexit outcomes it doesn't get majority support. And the parliamentary maths are the parliamentary maths. 

The broader point here is that remainers lost a national referendum in 2016, then gave 80% of the vote in 2017 to two parties who stated in their manifestos that they were determined to honour the results of that referendum. Talking to remainers, they often seem to have a view of politics where all that is needed is sufficient leadership and willpower, and Brexit can easily be stopped. That isn't the case; remainers are starting from a singularly unpromising starting point. 

(I'm going to be travelling for the next two to three days, so I shan't be responding to any responses any time soon - no offence intended to anyone, have a nice weekend, and lets hope we have some votes next week that do allow some small amount of control of the Brexit timetable to be wrestled from May)

[snowychap]

 

[chrisp65]

Genuinely too thick to comprehend the difference, or relying on the support of people he thinks will be too thick to understand the difference?

 

 

[bickster]

47 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Genuinely too thick to comprehend the difference, or relying on the support of people he thinks will be too thick to understand the difference?

 

 

Must have been in the chippy when they did Venn Diagrams at skool

[ml1dch]

48 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Genuinely too thick to comprehend the difference, or relying on the support of people he thinks will be too thick to understand the difference?

 

 

Based on how squeaky and excitable he gets, almost certainly the former.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

On your second point, the party in power are divided on some things, and very much not divided on others. They are divided on May's WA, for example, but they are not divided on the wisdom of a second referendum. They are divided about Theresa May's performance, but not divided about whether they have confidence in the government. The important point here is that the ways they are divided have not yet - and possibly/probably won't - created any openings to take control of the Parliamentary timetable or force an election. 

On the question of public support, you are flatly wrong that there is 'overwhelming' support for anything. There is support for a second referendum now in a clear majority of polls which ask the question alone, but when it is placed amongst a range of possible Brexit outcomes it doesn't get majority support. And the parliamentary maths are the parliamentary maths. 

The broader point here is that remainers lost a national referendum in 2016, then gave 80% of the vote in 2017 to two parties who stated in their manifestos that they were determined to honour the results of that referendum. Talking to remainers, they often seem to have a view of politics where all that is needed is sufficient leadership and willpower, and Brexit can easily be stopped. That isn't the case; remainers are starting from a singularly unpromising starting point. 

I like that.

I'd split out a few things, maybe. The first para is excellent. The second, is kind of overplaying, perhaps the (you're right) point about public views. Other than we're told polls say it's moved a bit to be something like Remain 54 - 46 Leave, it's kind of by the by. Parliament has to do their job, and without overwhelming public demand for one thing or the other, in some ways that helps them - they're not being driven to do whatever, even if they think it's wrong, by current public opinion overwhelmingly backing that thing. The same applies with the referendum to an extent. That obviously was in favour of some sort of undefined Leave version. The detail is completely unknown and unknowable beyond that narrow "some sort of Leave" verdict.

The third para - well yes. However, with both main parties offering the same broad policy promises on "Yeah, Leave" the public vote was also going to end up with 80% of the vote being for those parties, in whatever split between them. People vote for parties for more than just one policy or manifesto commitment.

The public, as far as we can tell is largely fed up with the politicians - just crack on with it, or just cancel it, or whatever are widely held views. The question as it always has been is "what exactly and how?"

Parliament, the "sovereignty" holding place needs to sort it out. You're right about remainers (or at least some of them) starting from a point of "it needs to be overturned, let's go from there". Equally there are leavers who are using similar "my personal preference is hard Brexit [or whatever] therefore ignore everything else, everyone else and give everyone my version of Brexit".

It is IMO, absolutely the role and duty of parliament to collectively work out a way ahead that addresses multiple things.

A narrow ref result for an undefined, unknown version of Leave.

Northern Ireland/Ireland border and the GFA

Protecting jobs and the NHS and farmers and industry and standards and the environment...etc.

What to do if they can't agree or get satisfactory outcomes to the above.

There's more, but that's the kind of thing. Like you said about the public, there's no clear favourite amongst MP opinion. There's a bunch of throbbing hard leavers, but they are a minority. There's a bunch of party drones who just vote with whatever their leader says, there's sizeable bunch of remainers (SNP, Green, chunks of Labour, LDs Plaid).

There's plenty of official government data to tell them what the consequences of different approaches in different sectors will be. There's no solution to the NI border, other than CU and SM. There's a wealth of non-government advice from Industry, Unions, Doctors, Aviation & Transport, trade experts...on their sectors. Bluntly nigh on all of it says no deal and hard Brexit are disastrous all round, soft brexit is manageable and remain is the least harmful. With all that, then they should and ought to work to reach a version of soft leave, or failing that remain, that caries a large majority in parliament.

Take away May's red line(s), Corbyn's "a not the" customs union and there's a clear choice - all of which look ( I think) acceptable to the EU as well - leave but stay in CU and SM - soft Brexit, no NI problems. Leave and join the Norway EEA group, delay and sort out precise details of a soft Brexit, or another ref.

Personally, I'd can the whole thing and am not really in favour of a second ref. - so the above isn't my personal preference, but a view on how it ought to be sorted out by the people responsible for sorting it out. It needs the party loyalty as a major factor being taken out of the equation.

[Chindie]

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Genuinely too thick to comprehend the difference, or relying on the support of people he thinks will be too thick to understand the difference?

 

 

I can recommend watching the whole show. Self was literally gleeful at skewering Francois again and again. And it really got to Francois, who clearly can't hold a candle to Self's intelligence. Self is literally looking at him with outright disdain for the entire thing.

[KenjiOgiwara]

Probably a daft question, but what is the likely outcome at this point? 

I don't follow British politics or this brexit thing close enough, but is there a likely outcome here? 

[ml1dch]

16 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Probably a daft question, but what is the likely outcome at this point? 

I don't follow British politics or this brexit thing close enough, but is there a likely outcome here? 

If you mean short-term (let's say three months), I reckon that anyone confidently predicting how it will play out hasn't understood it properly. It could be pretty much anything, but "it" should be a lot clearer by this time next week.

If you mean long-term, my best guess is technically outside the EU but with so little changing as to have rendered the whole thing pointless. And with nobody having the energy to reopen Pandora's Box to have the same arguments again for a long time.

Edited March 9, 2019 by ml1dch

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Probably a daft question, but what is the likely outcome at this point? 

I don't follow British politics or this brexit thing close enough, but is there a likely outcome here? 

Nobody really knows.

Next week there will be a second vote on May's deeply unpopular deal, a deal so unpopular that it lost by the biggest margin in Parliamentary history 2 months ago and hasn't changed since. May's tried to bribe and bully support for it in the meantime (offering Labour MPs money for their constituencies, and holding the entire country hostage to the clock running down), but chances are it'll still be rejected. If it's rejected massively again, it should be dead, but May is nothing if completely pig headed so who knows. If it loses by a significantly smaller margin, you wouldn't bet against her pushing it again right at the death. If it is rejected May has said there will then be a vote on whether to reject No Deal, which if it was rejected would then be followed by a vote on requesting an extension from the EU. The EU would then need to agree an extension, which is an issue in itself as the government is committed to any extension being short and the EU itself would have a problem as EU Parliament elections are due this summer and the UK being in limbo on those is a **** nightmare. The EU could suggest the extension must be longer and the UK would need to accept we would have to take part in the EU elections. Or it could say no, unlikely but possible. Either way if they offer extension the offer had to be agreed with Parliament and the can is kicked down the road for a bit.

As for the ultimate outcome? **** knows. No Deal requires nothing to happen, it's the default and as things stand if nothing is agreed the UK leaves with No Deal at the end of the month. Which is a disaster. This could still happen if there's an extension, just later down the line. May's deal could pass at the death if enough MPs blink in her game of chicken with the country. If May is binned (please) during an extension and her red lines are removed its possible a completely different deal could be done (Norway being the best outcome that isn't binning the whole madness). Or maybe the EU gives in at the death and let's May have all she wants. Which won't happen but isn't a complete impossibility.

Again, it's a mess.