EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Ianno87]

Sometimes there is an uptick in the number of children at the very high income end, and some have religious beliefs that lend to large families (or both, as per Mr Rees-Mogg), but why would the two-child cap on child-related benefits (only applied for births after 2017) have even seen the light of day if there was not a negative correlation between income and skill level and number of children?

Because there will always be *some* low-income (which does not equate to 'non-working') families with more than two children, so it was always going to save some money to some extent or other. And low income does not mean 'having children you can't afford'.

Are you one of those people who reads the tabloids and really, actually, believes there are masses and masses of parents out there who just have children as a money-making scheme?

It is also fair to say that the uptick in birth rate has correlated with an increase in migration.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing.

Equally, there are other explanations, for example a strong UK economy both encourages net inward migration for work, whilst simultaneously "native" Brits become more prosperous and more financially able to have children.

 

[EM2]

Sometimes there is an uptick in the number of children at the very high income end, and some have religious beliefs that lend to large families (or both, as per Mr Rees-Mogg), but why would the two-child cap on child-related benefits (only applied for births after 2017) have even seen the light of day if there was not a negative correlation between income and skill level and number of children?
PS It also helps if you filter out those who do not have children from the statistics, so that you can consider those who choose to have children.

It is also fair to say that the uptick in birth rate has correlated with an increase in migration.

Not sure what you mean by 'child-related benefits'. Child Benefit is not capped by number of children, and is only means-tested for persons earning over £50,000 pa.
Birth rate in the UK is at its lowest in ten years.

 

[edwin_m]

It is also a slightly different case, a Conservative-led Brexit, whether hard or soft, would take the wind from the sails of the far right. Appeasement is a poor comparison, to revise Winston Churchill's appeasement and crocodile quote it is more like feeding the crocodile (in this case being the far right) with material that it cannot derive nutritional value from so that it starves while also buying enough time to deal with it.

In that case how come the crocodile is alive and well and taking over the Conservative party?

The line being taken on Brexit is very much at the hard end of the options available within the "leave" result of the referendum, as posted above doesn't reflect what prominent Leavers said during the campaign, and if the vote was held again the support for this specific version of leaving would almost certainly fall below 50%. That was a choice made by May and others to appease the hard right rather than aim for some kind of concensus across the political spectrum. Despite this the right is poised to replace May with one of their own as soon as the agreement is signed, possibly to tear it up and aim for something even harder during the transition period, and to move to the right on other issues too. That makes the Tory party unelectable by many with traditional centre-right views.

If Brexit goes ahead the least worst option is that enough Tory MPs will leave the party on the election of Boris or other hard right leader to destroy their majority and cause an election. The choice between an ultra-right Tory party and an ultra-left Labour party plus a barely-formed centre group and a largely irrelevant LibDem party doesn't bode well for addressing the many (and largely self-inflicted) problems the UK faces.

 

[Ken H]

In that case how come the crocodile is alive and well and taking over the Conservative party?

The line being taken on Brexit is very much at the hard end of the options available within the "leave" result of the referendum, as posted above doesn't reflect what prominent Leavers said during the campaign, and if the vote was held again the support for this specific version of leaving would almost certainly fall below 50%. That was a choice made by May and others to appease the hard right rather than aim for some kind of concensus across the political spectrum. Despite this the right is poised to replace May with one of their own as soon as the agreement is signed, possibly to tear it up and aim for something even harder during the transition period, and to move to the right on other issues too. That makes the Tory party unelectable by many with traditional centre-right views.

If Brexit goes ahead the least worst option is that enough Tory MPs will leave the party on the election of Boris or other hard right leader to destroy their majority and cause an election. The choice between an ultra-right Tory party and an ultra-left Labour party plus a barely-formed centre group and a largely irrelevant LibDem party doesn't bode well for addressing the many (and largely self-inflicted) problems the UK faces.

any evidence for that or wishful thinking?

 

[DarloRich]

So the new deal delivered by the prime minster appears to be the old deal with the words rearranged and an almost meaningless best endeavours clause tacked on.

Legally best endeavours means almost nothing and is almost impossible to enforce.

 

[Ken H]

So the new deal delivered by the prime minster appears to be the old deal with the words rearranged and an almost meaningless best endeavours clause tacked on.

Legally best endeavours means almost nothing and is almost impossible to enforce.

you cant polish a turd....

 

[dosxuk]

The language being used over the last couple of weeks by the government has changed - no longer are they taking about our success in the future, or freeing us to do or own deals, it's now all about pushing this deal over the line before the deadline. It's not "get on board, this is what the country needs", it's "get on board or you might get a worse option", "do this now or we're doomed".

MP's are not only there to represent their constituent's directly expressed wishes, they are there to do the best thing for their constituents and the country - sometimes those will be at odds to one another (I use the example of a hypothetical referendum on making income tax optional to those earning less than, say £100k - would easily pass, but nobody would like the consequences). I hope at least half of our members of parliament today actually decide to evaluate if this deal is the best option available to this country. And we do have options, we can delay this until we have built a consensus, we can abandon this, and there are other deals we could do it we had a leadership which actually listened rather than played brinkmanship games and getting their red crayons out. Ignore the right wingers saying they want to have a fight. Ignore the ERG power games (any other situation, or balance of votes and half of them would have had the whip withdrawn with the way they've been paying around). Ignore those telling you to vote one way to prevent a different option. And ignore those telling you to vote one way to possibly maybe put another better option on the table. Today is simply about "is this the best deal possible for this country and its population?".

And then comes your hard job MPs - explaining to your constituents why you think that's the best, after all, your entire job is to understand the issues, make decisions and then make those decisions understandable to the public, not make a decision and then go hide away and blame some faceless civil servant or external body for forcing you to vote a certain way.

Regardless of the way people voted, currently we're all losers in this ridiculous situation.

 

[dgl]

So the new deal delivered by the prime minster appears to be the old deal with the words rearranged and an almost meaningless best endeavours clause tacked on.

Legally best endeavours means almost nothing and is almost impossible to enforce.

Just what I thought, it's almost like she thinks all MP's are stupid and will just believe her claptrap, well some of the papers have fallen for it at least.
The EU has it's policies/rules and it could not and would not ever change it's stance, it's like asking for a Pepsi in the headquarters of the Coca Cola company.

 

[Bantamzen]

The language being used over the last couple of weeks by the government has changed - no longer are they taking about our success in the future, or freeing us to do or own deals, it's now all about pushing this deal over the line before the deadline. It's not "get on board, this is what the country needs", it's "get on board or you might get a worse option", "do this now or we're doomed".

MP's are not only there to represent their constituent's directly expressed wishes, they are there to do the best thing for their constituents and the country - sometimes those will be at odds to one another (I use the example of a hypothetical referendum on making income tax optional to those earning less than, say £100k - would easily pass, but nobody would like the consequences). I hope at least half of our members of parliament today actually decide to evaluate if this deal is the best option available to this country. And we do have options, we can delay this until we have built a consensus, we can abandon this, and there are other deals we could do it we had a leadership which actually listened rather than played brinkmanship games and getting their red crayons out. Ignore the right wingers saying they want to have a fight. Ignore the ERG power games (any other situation, or balance of votes and half of them would have had the whip withdrawn with the way they've been paying around). Ignore those telling you to vote one way to prevent a different option. And ignore those telling you to vote one way to possibly maybe put another better option on the table. Today is simply about "is this the best deal possible for this country and its population?".

And then comes your hard job MPs - explaining to your constituents why you think that's the best, after all, your entire job is to understand the issues, make decisions and then make those decisions understandable to the public, not make a decision and then go hide away and blame some faceless civil servant or external body for forcing you to vote a certain way.

Regardless of the way people voted, currently we're all losers in this ridiculous situation.

Sadly, this kind of pragmatic thinking is no longer part of our politics. I suspect that enough MPs will not bother to do their jobs properly, instead opting for some quick voting chasing rhetoric & stick pretty much to their original lines, regardless as to whether what is being proposed in the House today is the best option in front of us. So I'll boldly predict the deal will be rejected again, possibly with a reduced but still significant margin. The very best we can hope for is that the same will also reject the 'No Deal' option, leaving us with no option but to put the brakes on the process.

This of course will not please leavers, but frankly as you say sometimes what individuals want & what the country needs can be at odds and so some middle ground will have to be sought. I do believe that the UK will still leave the EU at some point, but we can't simply fall out with no deal because even if the consequences are felt only in the short to medium term, for a lot of us it will be a consequence too far. Patience & clear heads is what is needed now.

 

[AM9]

So the new deal delivered by the prime minster appears to be the old deal with the words rearranged and an almost meaningless best endeavours clause tacked on.

Legally best endeavours means almost nothing and is almost impossible to enforce.

Actually, in English law 'best endeavours is quite onerous meaning that the party undertakes to do everything possible to perform. Most lawyers would advise such a commitment as a recent Court of Appeal case examined whether a commitment to use 'best endeavours' could require a party to act against its commercial interests in order to fulfil its contractual obligations.

 

[DarloRich]

Actually, in English law 'best endeavours is quite onerous meaning that the party undertakes to do everything possible to perform. Most lawyers would advise such a commitment as a recent Court of Appeal case examined whether a commitment to use 'best endeavours' could require a party to act against its commercial interests in order to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Actually, it really isnt anything of the sort. It absolutely does not mean that the party undertakes to do everything possible to perform. It is not an absolute requirement and a "reasonableness" test still applies. Best endeavours is a phrase used to get an agreement of sorts all the while hoping you never have to enforce the clause. If you know there are going to be issues the resolution of those issues should be expressly set out in the agreement along with the rectification procedure. Best endeavours is a fudge and a poor one at that.

BTW a superb cut and paste from the internet which missed off the key point: It concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the party to do so, but the extent to which a party would be required to do so will be a question of fact in each case.

Could you cite the case this decision was made in so that the particulars of the case can be understood?

 

[Howardh]

Well it's up for grabs tonight. I'm split; a deal will mean we can carry on as normal for nearly two years; dunno about the EHIC card though - do we keep that for longer? Yet if the ERG and DUP vote it down, that still could open the door for a vote on remaining v the/no deal. I can't see parliament ever accepting no deal; so I'm kinda hoping it will be voted down.

Thing is though, this is barely the start. We still have to negotiate our future relationship, which seems to have been put to one side; and if we have an early election then it could be Labour doing those negotiations. So wonder, after the Withdrawl Bill, whether Labour would keep us in/aligned to the customs union and single market and we get to keep our lovely freedom of movement in the end?

 

[DarloRich]

it seems the attorney general isnt supportive of the new arrangements:

The government's senior law officer said the extra assurances won by Mrs May "reduce the risk that the United Kingdom could be indefinitely and involuntarily detained" in the backstop if talks on the two sides future relationship broke down due to "bad faith" by the EU.

But he added: "However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol's arrangements, save by agreement."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47533666

 

[Bantamzen]

Well it's up for grabs tonight. I'm split; a deal will mean we can carry on as normal for nearly two years; dunno about the EHIC card though - do we keep that for longer? Yet if the ERG and DUP vote it down, that still could open the door for a vote on remaining v the/no deal. I can't see parliament ever accepting no deal; so I'm kinda hoping it will be voted down.

Thing is though, this is barely the start. We still have to negotiate our future relationship, which seems to have been put to one side; and if we have an early election then it could be Labour doing those negotiations. So wonder, after the Withdrawl Bill, whether Labour would keep us in/aligned to the customs union and single market and we get to keep our lovely freedom of movement in the end?

As someone who decided not to vote either way because the debate simply wasn't focused on the real issues but instead turned into a childish slanging match, I've long just been hoping for it all to come to a conclusion. But frankly the longer this goes on, the clearer it becomes that nobody really knows what they want from this, in part thanks to 3+ years of name-calling, and that as a nation we are flailing about like the proverbial headless chicken my position is changing. So if, as I expect the deal gets voted down, and if no deal is rejected then we are going to have to re-boot the whole debate.

And as such I think the British people deserve a chance to have a say on just what Brexit should look like, to at least set a firmer mandate than just invoking A50 as the 2016 referendum mandated. Yes, this does mean a second referendum & yes will mean that giving the whole issue up as a bad job for now might be an option. But this will need the debate to be steered away from the shouty people on either side of the argument, and concentrate on the pros & cons of both leaving & remaining. A second referendum would then have to have at least 4 options, maybe more, those 4 being at least:

• Leave the EU with no deal
• Delay Brexit & seek a full & frank renegotiation with the EU
• Delay Brexit & seek a Norway style deal
• Revoke A50 & remain in the EU

Of course none of the shouties on either side will like this, but the gathering cluster-you-know-what that is Brexit circa 2019 is slowly destroying an confidence by business & investors, who want more than anything else to see a decisive plan being formulated and executed. If we don't start get serious about sorting this out, we could damage our economy for decades to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Delay Brexit & seek a full & frank renegotiation with the EU

It is quite clear that this is not on offer so there is no point in having it.

I do think an Alternative Vote (ranked) referendum would make sense, though, using options similar to yours.

* Leave on WTO terms i.e. no deal
* Leave with May's deal
* Leave with an EEA/EFTA style deal i.e. Norway/Switzerland esque
* Remain

Obviously an advantage of AV would not only be that the Leave vote wouldn't be split, it would also mean that if one option becomes clear to be infeasible, you just knock it off and pursue the next one on the list.

 

[Howardh]

Watching the Politics show right now, the Tories are at war with each other. If it wasn't so serious...

But the clever money's on - deal down, tomorrow no-deal ruled out and an extension asked for; then it's up the the EU to accept that as it stands (maybe to allow a softer Labour-Brexit) or only for an election/referendum. If we go down that line what will be the question? No-deal/remain?
Deal/Remain?
Labour's Deal/Remain?
Labour's deal/no deal??
etc etc.
All we have to do after the deal fails is drop those flaming red lines and accept being part of the single market and custom's union, and all may's difficulties disappear.
Again, such fun if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Bantamzen]

It is quite clear that this is not on offer so there is no point in having it.

I do think an Alternative Vote (ranked) referendum would make sense, though, using options similar to yours.

* Leave on WTO terms i.e. no deal
* Leave with May's deal
* Leave with an EEA/EFTA style deal i.e. Norway/Switzerland esque
* Remain

Obviously an advantage of AV would not only be that the Leave vote wouldn't be split, it would also mean that if one option becomes clear to be infeasible, you just knock it off and pursue the next one on the list.

Yeah, an AV referendum would make sense, although I'd still like to have a possible position of renegotiation, so maybe 5 options? It does complicate matters however, but with an AV it might help sort out what our position should be. But otherwise this all makes more sense to me.

Watching the Politics show right now, the Tories are at war with each other. If it wasn't so serious...

But the clever money's on - deal down, tomorrow no-deal ruled out and an extension asked for; then it's up the the EU to accept that as it stands (maybe to allow a softer Labour-Brexit) or only for an election/referendum. If we go down that line what will be the question? No-deal/remain?
Deal/Remain?
Labour's Deal/Remain?
Labour's deal/no deal??
etc etc.

Again, such fun if it wasn't so serious.

Reboot of Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister anyone? Maybe with a side order of Spitting Image...??

 

[DarloRich]

But the clever money's on - deal down, tomorrow no-deal ruled out and an extension asked for;

that is what I think will happen but, honestly, I have no idea what IS going to happen. No one does really just as no one knows what happens after we get past this issue!

 

[AM9]

Actually, it really isnt anything of the sort. It absolutely does not mean that the party undertakes to do everything possible to perform. It is not an absolute requirement and a "reasonableness" test still applies. Best endeavours is a phrase used to get an agreement of sorts all the while hoping you never have to enforce the clause. If you know there are going to be issues the resolution of those issues should be expressly set out in the agreement along with the rectification procedure. Best endeavours is a fudge and a poor one at that.

BTW a superb cut and paste from the internet which missed off the key point: It concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the party to do so, but the extent to which a party would be required to do so will be a question of fact in each case.

Could you cite the case this decision was made in so that the particulars of the case can be understood?

The case Jet2.com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417, 2 April 2012 at the Court of Appeal: This extract is from the Allen& Overy Litigation and Dispute Resolution Review, a monthly publication:
"The Court of Appeal’s decision also confirms the view that in executing its best endeavours obligation, a party may well be obliged to incur some expense and act against its own interests. The extent to which it will be obliged to do so appears to be fact-specific, and, although not explicit in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, is likely to be affected by whether the object of the obligation is fundamental to the performance of the contract."
and
"Parties may also want to take heed of the attention Longmore LJ paid to the status quo which meant, in his eyes, that the onus was on BAL to justify its change of stance after four years. Moreover, opening outside of normal hours was something within BAL’s control."
I suggest that a commercial company entering into contract would generally be averse to including either 'best endeavours' or 'all reasonable endeavours' where there was risk being held to those terms and a possible likelihood of acting against their own interests. In my sphere of experience, (not in a legal capacity though), responsible organisations that negotiate for contracts where there may be significant risks of performance failure, steer well clear of any such blanket obligation, and if they are that strong-minded on winning the contract, such areas are entered into on a much more defined level with specific reasonable endeavours aligned to their detailed definitions, hopefully to avoid the mess that messrs. Jet2 and Blackpool Airport got themselves into.
Given that the UK government is really clutching at straws to try and prevent their extremist colleagues walking off later today, it would be folly to try and commit the EU to something in terms of 'best endeavours', especially if they would probably have to take the matter to the ECJ with all the hostility that some here (in the UK) have to that court.

 

[dosxuk]

With all the talk of extending article 50, there are now plenty of reports indicating the EUs desire to grant such an extension is waning as they're not sure what the point of such an extension would be. There's no point extending it just so May can have an endless stream of attempts to get the same deal through, and there's no chance of a long enough extension to start over. They are saying an extension would be granted pretty much as a matter of course *if* it was just a case of getting the final bits signed and sealed, but with no consensus for any alternative plan it's very difficult to even know what sort of extension would be needed, and with new elections and budgets imminent it becomes very difficult to entertain a member who is being as difficult as us.

 

[edwin_m]

any evidence for that or wishful thinking?

It is reasonable to expect that of the 52%, some proportion would no longer support the form of Brexit that's likely to be on offer, and arguable that this would amount to enough that the 52% reduced below 50%. Opinion polls indicate a small majority in favour of Remain (https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/).

But you're right, we can't be certain because the referendum question didn't include that sort of detail and all the various Brexit factions have been asserting that they represent the people's view ever since. The only way to be certain of what people think now is to have another referendum.

 

[Esker-pades]

It is reasonable to expect that of the 52%, some proportion would no longer support the form of Brexit that's likely to be on offer, and arguable that this would amount to enough that the 52% reduced below 50%. Opinion polls indicate a small majority in favour of Remain (https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/).

But you're right, we can't be certain because the referendum question didn't include that sort of detail and all the various Brexit factions have been asserting that they represent the people's view ever since. The only way to be certain of what people think now is to have another referendum.

I would be very hesitent to trust that source. Firstly, there is a large proportion of undecided voters. Secondly, even shortly after the referendum when the whole thing hadn't already gone down a huge hole, this shows Remain in the lead for part of it. In addition, there is a lack of data for 6 months.

Ignoring the statistical noise, the best guess appears to be that remain and leave are on level pegging, as we already know.

 

[Ianno87]

With all the talk of extending article 50, there are now plenty of reports indicating the EUs desire to grant such an extension is waning as they're not sure what the point of such an extension would be. There's no point extending it just so May can have an endless stream of attempts to get the same deal through, and there's no chance of a long enough extension to start over. They are saying an extension would be granted pretty much as a matter of course *if* it was just a case of getting the final bits signed and sealed, but with no consensus for any alternative plan it's very difficult to even know what sort of extension would be needed, and with new elections and budgets imminent it becomes very difficult to entertain a member who is being as difficult as us.

By process of elimination, the only remaining credible way forward is to acknowledge Brexit as a concept is infeasible, withdraw Article 50 and mutually agree the last 3 years never happened.

 

[Howardh]

By process of elimination, the only remaining credible way forward is to acknowledge Brexit as a concept is infeasible, withdraw Article 50 and mutually agree the last 3 years never happened.

I wish. Brexit WAS plausible, but not the way it's been done by a PM who follows a group of headbanger leavers who have wrapped her up in her own red lines. We could have had the Norway model months and months ago and all this "backstop" wouldn't be necessary.

 

[dosxuk]

I wish. Brexit WAS plausible, but not the way it's been done by a PM who follows a group of headbanger leavers who have wrapped her up in her own red lines. We could have had the Norway model months and months ago and all this "backstop" wouldn't be necessary.

But then loads, especially from the ERG side of the debate, think this is worse than being a member, as we'd still be paying in to the EU budget, still following many of their rules, but have no seat at the table to help form (/ veto) those rules.

 

[Howardh]

But then loads, especially from the ERG side of the debate, think this is worse than being a member, as we'd still be paying in to the EU budget, still following many of their rules, but have no seat at the table to help form (/ veto) those rules.

Yes, so let's remain and get the best of everything and have a say!

 

[JamesT]

Eh? Free movement has been in place since the Treaty of Rome, 1958.

Yes and no. My understanding is that Rome only provided for freedom of movement for economically active workers. Whereas Maastricht and the change to the EU extended this right more generally for EU Citizens to reside in any country.

 

[JamesT]

Not sure what you mean by 'child-related benefits'. Child Benefit is not capped by number of children, and is only means-tested for persons earning over £50,000 pa.
Birth rate in the UK is at its lowest in ten years.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-benefits-for-2-or-more-children - various benefits which have some linkage to the number of children you have are now limited so you can't claim for more than two. (With exceptions as you can't possibly have rules that simple.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wish. Brexit WAS plausible, but not the way it's been done by a PM who follows a group of headbanger leavers who have wrapped her up in her own red lines. We could have had the Norway model months and months ago and all this "backstop" wouldn't be necessary.

As my view is that the EU should never have gone further than being a trading bloc, if I could have known for certain a Norway/Switzerland model would be adopted I might well have voted leave. As I couldn't be assured of that, Remain it was.

So if that's the outcome I will be more than happy as it is the outcome I would have voted for had it been an option to do so.

 

[Geezertronic]

I wish. Brexit WAS plausible, but not the way it's been done by a PM who follows a group of headbanger leavers who have wrapped her up in her own red lines. We could have had the Norway model months and months ago and all this "backstop" wouldn't be necessary.

Personally I think this was the intention all along. String out a bad deal, annoy Remain & Leave supporters alike, then revoke Article 50. I don't believe there is any real momentum (not Labour) within the higher Government figures to get a good deal and actually proceed with Brexit