EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Typhoon]

The day after the referendum result, I posted elsewhere:
'Does anyone know of any B-Arks departing any time soon? Eternity with marketing executives and telephone sanitisers seems preferable to the immediate future here.'

Congratulations sir!

You do realise that it wouldn't be so bad, you could have made a killing on No-Deal insurance with all salesmen onboard

 

[DerekC]

It's quickly becoming apparent that there is no mechanism to translate a perceived lack of majority for Brexit (of any flavor) into something that can nix the process and apply the emergency brake. The incumbent PM and his government are intent on the country leaving on October 31st regardless of a lack of deal, and the options are now extremely limited to prevent it happening.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit

"A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.

Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:

• It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
• MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
• Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
• A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
• There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
• A second referendum can only happen with government support."

The only plausible course of action I have seen to stop BB from leaving without a deal during an election shutdown is:

1) Pass a vote taking control of the House of Commons agenda away from the Government (I think it only has to be for a day or two)
2) Pass an Act requiring the Government to ask for an extension of the deadline to cover an election if one is called
3) Then (and only then) have the vote of no confidence

That could (as far as I can see) work - but it needs a lot of coordination between backbenchers in five different parties. Jeremy C should have got the message that a post-no-deal election win for Boris is curtains for him so would (hopefully) support it, but some Labour Leave MPs will rebel and the potential Tory rebels won't want to put their jobs on the line unless there is absolutely no alternative.

 

[Killingworth]

It's quickly becoming apparent that there is no mechanism to translate a perceived lack of majority for Brexit (of any flavor) into something that can nix the process and apply the emergency brake. The incumbent PM and his government are intent on the country leaving on October 31st regardless of a lack of deal, and the options are now extremely limited to prevent it happening.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/parliament-role-before-31-october-brexit

"A new paper by the Institute for Government says MPs looking to make their voices heard will have far fewer opportunities to do so this time around than they had in the run-up to the end of March this year, when the former prime minister was trying to pass her withdrawal agreement.

Given the limited time available, this paper reaches the following conclusions about what is likely to happen over the next few months:

• It is very unlikely the UK will be able to leave the EU with a deal on 31 October
• MPs can express opposition to no deal but that alone will not prevent it
• Backbenchers have very few opportunities to legislate to stop no deal
• A vote of no confidence would not necessarily stop no deal
• There is little time to hold a general election before 31 October
• A second referendum can only happen with government support."

Sadly, the reality is that nobody is happy with the current situation.

Everybody wants it to end.

A supposed majority want to remain. That majority can't agree amongst itself who could possibly lead them, and even if it could it can't define exactly what the future must look like, or who will confidently, and competently, ensure it happens.

Another supposed majority wants to leave, and leave with no deal - to be done with it.

Any new referendum or general election would reflect that total confusion.

The best we've got is a collection of egotists who believe we can land well after going over the cliff. Most of them seem to have good personal parachutes available, but at least they've agreed on something.

So, barring a miracle when the currently unknown cavalry comes galloping over the horizon, over the cliff we're going to go. It's going to be very messy either way.

 

[krus_aragon]

The only plausible course of action I have seen to stop BB from leaving without a deal during an election shutdown is:

1) Pass a vote taking control of the House of Commons agenda away from the Government (I think it only has to be for a day or two)
2) Pass an Act requiring the Government to ask for an extension of the deadline to cover an election if one is called
3) Then (and only then) have the vote of no confidence

That could (as far as I can see) work - but it needs a lot of coordination between backbenchers in five different parties. Jeremy C should have got the message that a post-no-deal election win for Boris is curtains for him so would (hopefully) support it, but some Labour Leave MPs will rebel and the potential Tory rebels won't want to put their jobs on the line unless there is absolutely no alternative.

The trouble with that is getting step 1 done: when the Government schedules the business of the house, it's hard to get anything else in for a vote (as seen in earlier attempts to gain control).

 

[edwin_m]

The only plausible course of action I have seen to stop BB from leaving without a deal during an election shutdown is:

1) Pass a vote taking control of the House of Commons agenda away from the Government (I think it only has to be for a day or two)
2) Pass an Act requiring the Government to ask for an extension of the deadline to cover an election if one is called
3) Then (and only then) have the vote of no confidence

That could (as far as I can see) work - but it needs a lot of coordination between backbenchers in five different parties. Jeremy C should have got the message that a post-no-deal election win for Boris is curtains for him so would (hopefully) support it, but some Labour Leave MPs will rebel and the potential Tory rebels won't want to put their jobs on the line unless there is absolutely no alternative.

But Boris can always go to Brussels and annoy everyone so much that they won't give him an extension. Heck, he annoys them so much already, just think what he could do if if tried.

I think the solution is to replace Step 2 by an amendment to the Fixed Term Parliaments act removing the discretion of the outgoing PM to set the election date - and do all this in time for the election to be in the last week of October which is about the earliest it can be. Or even pass a Bill that revokes Article 50 on October 31st, so that becomes the default outcome unless Parliament is in session and repeals the new Bill in the meantime (but that might struggle to get a majority as revoking without a referendum isn't very democratic).

 

[Cartaker]

There's no majority in the UK for a no-deal brexit, and probably now no majority for brexit at all.

Funny I thought there was a vote on this in 2016 and I seem to recall there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit and apparently there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit. Would it be stretching things a little if our overpaid egotistical MP's returned Great Britain and Northern Ireland back to being a Democracy and stop throwing the rattle out of the pram.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Funny I thought there was a vote on this in 2016 and I seem to recall there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit and apparently there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit. Would it be stretching things a little if our overpaid egotistical MP's returned Great Britain and Northern Ireland back to being a Democracy and stop throwing the rattle out of the pram.

Are people not allowed to change their minds?

 

[EM2]

...there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit...

3.78% of the votes cast is not a considerable majority in anyone's book.

 

[BlueFox]

there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit.

The leave campaign only talked about a "deal brexit". They said after voting leave we'd hold all the cards and the negotiations would be easy. They said we wouldn't leave without a deal.

 

[EM2]

By the by, the following members of the current Cabinet voted AYE when Theresa May's deal was put to the vote in Parliament for the third time:
Johnson, Javid, Raab, Gove, Buckland, Barclay, Wallace, Hancock, Leadsom, Truss, Rudd, Williamson, Jenrick, Shapps, Smith, Jack, Cairns, Morgan, Sharma and Cleverley.
That's 20 members of a 23-strong Cabinet. Yet now, that deal is a problem

 

[Enthusiast]

By the by, the following members of the current Cabinet voted AYE when Theresa May's deal was put to the vote in Parliament for the third time:
Johnson, Javid, Raab, Gove, Buckland, Barclay, Wallace, Hancock, Leadsom, Truss, Rudd, Williamson, Jenrick, Shapps, Smith, Jack, Cairns, Morgan, Sharma and Cleverley.
That's 20 members of a 23-strong Cabinet. Yet now, that deal is a problem

That's because then their boss (May) was telling to vote in favour. Now their boss (Johnson) is telling them the deal is dead. Simple preservation of their additional Ministerial stipend.

 

[EM2]

That's because then their boss (May) was telling to vote in favour. Now their boss (Johnson) is telling them the deal is dead. Simple preservation of their additional Ministerial stipend.

Their then-boss wasn't their boss for all of them (Johnson had resigned for a start).

 

[edwin_m]

Funny I thought there was a vote on this in 2016 and I seem to recall there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit and apparently there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit. Would it be stretching things a little if our overpaid egotistical MP's returned Great Britain and Northern Ireland back to being a Democracy and stop throwing the rattle out of the pram.

Imagine if a government was foolish enough to have a referendum on abolishing income tax. Nobody likes paying a big slice of their income so it would probably be voted in with a big majority.

The government would then have to decide whether to make up the shortfall in taxes or cut spending, or a mixture. If they decide to raise other taxes then which ones to raise? If they decide to cut spending then which items to cut? You'd probably find that although a majority voted in favour of abolishing income tax, there was no majority for any single course of action that would allow it to happen.

It's the same with Brexit. People had a choice between a clearly understood Remain option and an ill-defined Leave option. As soon as the government had to try to get the details of leaving agreed, the majority fell apart. There may be a majority in Cabinet and the Conservative Party to leave without a deal but there is none in Parliament and there is almost certainly none in the country as a whole.

 

[nlogax]

This continual retconning of 2016 leave-voting expectations towards a no-deal outcome is getting really boring. The vast majority of pro-Brexit voices before and during the referendum were fully expecting a deal to happen. More than that - those voices expected it to be easy.

 

[Billy A]

Funny I thought there was a vote on this in 2016 and I seem to recall there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit and apparently there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit. Would it be stretching things a little if our overpaid egotistical MP's returned Great Britain and Northern Ireland back to being a Democracy and stop throwing the rattle out of the pram.

Interesting that you take the trouble to include Northern Ireland, seeing how it voted to remain....

 

[Enthusiast]

3.78% of the votes cast is not a considerable majority in anyone's book.

In 1997 the people of Wales were asked if they wanted a devolved assembly. They voted by a majority of 6,721 (on a turnout of over 1.1m votes). That was 50.3% to 49.7%, a majority of 0.6% on a turnout of 50.2%, a majority twelve times slimmer (on a considerable smaller turnout) than the EU referendum.

There was no talk of a re-run, no argument over the result. The Government of Wales Act was passed in 1998 and the Welsh Assembly set up in 1999.

 

[Enthusiast]

People had a choice between a clearly understood Remain option

There is nothing "clearly defined" about remaining in the EU. Nobody knows how it will evolve in the future. You only need to look at the difference between it now and, say, a dozen years ago. People who believe they were voting for the "status quo" were equally misled because the EU does not intend to maintain the status quo.

The vast majority of pro-Brexit voices before and during the referendum were fully expecting a deal to happen.

I imagine they were expecting the EU to negotiate a pragmatic deal of benefit to the economies of both sides. They probably did not expect them to produce a take-it-or-leave-it list of demands which they insist on in order to avoid causing us too much trouble. I personally had no such misapprehensions and what happened was of no surprise to me.

 

[EM2]

In 1997 the people of Wales were asked if they wanted a devolved assembly. They voted by a majority of 6,721 (on a turnout of over 1.1m votes). That was 50.3% to 49.7%, a majority of 0.6% on a turnout of 50.2%, a majority twelve times slimmer (on a considerable smaller turnout) than the EU referendum.

There was no talk of a re-run, no argument over the result. The Government of Wales Act was passed in 1998 and the Welsh Assembly set up in 1999.

And? Was it a 'considerable majority', as Cartaker stated the EU referendum was? That wasn't and nor was your example.
But also, when the relevant bill was put to the Commons after the Welsh referendum, many Tory MPs, including the then newly elected Theresa May, voted against it.
And, the Conservatives went into the 2005 general election with a manifesto pledging a new vote for the people on Wales, to include an option to abolish the assembly.

 

[EM2]

They probably did not expect them to produce a take-it-or-leave-it list of demands which they insist on in order to avoid causing us too much trouble. I personally had no such misapprehensions and what happened was of no surprise to me.

Which side in the negotiation put in their 'red lines':
No ECJ jurisdiction
No free movement
No substantial financial contribution
Regulatory autonomy
Independent trade policy
No hard border in Ireland

 

[Enthusiast]

And? Was it a 'considerable majority',

No it wasn't. It was a majority (and I never suggested that either referendum returned a "substantial" majority). I was simply pointing out the lack of similarity between one referendum, where the result was enacted without issue and another (with a majority twelve times greater on a far higher turnout) where those who voted for the option which eventually prevailed were treated with derision and insult and which produced rancour and downright obstruction among the people tasked with implementing their decision.

 

[edwin_m]

There is nothing "clearly defined" about remaining in the EU. Nobody knows how it will evolve in the future. You only need to look at the difference between it now and, say, a dozen years ago. People who believe they were voting for the "status quo" were equally misled because the EU does not intend to maintain the status quo.

Well if people don't like what it will be in the future the answer is to stay in and try to change it, or failing that to leave at a future time if it becomes unacceptable. Otherwise it's like if I decided to stop going to my favourite restaurant because at some time in the future they might decide to take the dishes I like off the menu.

And if the EU has changed in the last dozen years, then the prospect of not being in the EU has changed a lot more in the last three.

I imagine they were expecting the EU to negotiate a pragmatic deal of benefit to the economies of both sides. They probably did not expect them to produce a take-it-or-leave-it list of demands which they insist on in order to avoid causing us too much trouble. I personally had no such misapprehensions and what happened was of no surprise to me.

Are you suggesting that the whole gang of Brexit pushers were being unexpectedly charitable to the EU, a body they seem to consider to be evil incarnate? If you expected it to turn into what is has done, then did you vote for it? And if so why?

People who didn't have that sort of foresight and believed the Brexit politicians or their favourite tabloid are now likely to get something very different from what they voted for. Is that not a reason to stop and think again?

 

[Enthusiast]

Which side in the negotiation put in their 'red lines':
No ECJ jurisdiction
No free movement
No substantial financial contribution
Regulatory autonomy
Independent trade policy
No hard border in Ireland

The UK itemised their red lines simply because - with the exception of the Irish border - a Brexit without them would be Brexit in name only. The "deal" (of which I read about 60% before giving up having realised what it was) simply trashes most of those red lines to a greater or lesser degree as a condition for allowing us to "leave" smoothly.

 

[edwin_m]

No it wasn't. It was a majority (and I never suggested that either referendum returned a "substantial" majority). I was simply pointing out the lack of similarity between one referendum, where the result was enacted without issue and another (with a majority twelve times greater on a far higher turnout) where those who voted for the option which eventually prevailed were treated with derision and insult and which produced rancour and downright obstruction among the people tasked with implementing their decision.

It was clear what the people of Wales were going to get if they voted for it - an assembly with specific powers. The equivalent would have been if they had ended up, without any chance to change their minds, being thrown out of the UK and with customs controls and tariffs at the border.

 

[DerekC]

There is nothing "clearly defined" about remaining in the EU. Nobody knows how it will evolve in the future. You only need to look at the difference between it now and, say, a dozen years ago. People who believe they were voting for the "status quo" were equally misled because the EU does not intend to maintain the status quo.

The EU works by consensus - so however it evolves, it changes with the agreement of the governments of its member states. It is also (contrary to Brexiteer propaganda) a democracy with a functioning parliament

I imagine they were expecting the EU to negotiate a pragmatic deal of benefit to the economies of both sides. They probably did not expect them to produce a take-it-or-leave-it list of demands which they insist on in order to avoid causing us too much trouble. I personally had no such misapprehensions and what happened was of no surprise to me.

That is simply the opposite of the truth. The people with the demands (remember the "red lines"?) are the Brexiteers. Leave the single market, leave the customs union, end freedom of movement, end any involvement of the ECJ yet leave the Irish border open and trade freely. On what planet was it the EU who had a "take-it-or-leave-it list of demands"?

 

[edwin_m]

The UK itemised their red lines simply because - with the exception of the Irish border - a Brexit without them would be Brexit in name only. The "deal" (of which I read about 60% before giving up having realised what it was) simply trashes most of those red lines to a greater or lesser degree as a condition for allowing us to "leave" smoothly.

It's pretty much impossible to put together a deal that respects all those red lines without cutting the UK off almost totally from our nearest neighbours and colletively our biggest trading partner. And remember the EU has red lines too - it's not going to compromise its own interests for a country that isn't a member. So not surprisingly many people are uncomfortable with parts of the deal, and even many of the Leavers have said it would be worse than remaining.

You may think that all those red lines are essential, but how many of the 52% agree with you? And if you say the deal is unacceptable, then you can't say that the supporters of a deal and of no deal want the same thing. So there are now three distinct choices: deal, no deal, or remain. And according to every recent opinion poll, support for remaining outnumbers either or both of the other two.

 

[anme]

There is nothing "clearly defined" about remaining in the EU. Nobody knows how it will evolve in the future. You only need to look at the difference between it now and, say, a dozen years ago.

How is the EU different compared to a dozen years ago? Apart from those kipper regulations.

 

[anme]

Funny I thought there was a vote on this in 2016 and I seem to recall there was quite a considerable majority in favour of Brexit and apparently there was no mention at that time of a Deal Brexit.

I wrote "now", not "2016". It's more important what people think today than what they thought three years ago.

 

[AM9]

How is the EU different compared to a dozen years ago? Apart from those kipper regulations.

I agree. Absolutely nobody knows how the UK as a lone trading country will fare by next year, let alone in 10 years time. In 10 years we could be anything from a vassal 51st state to a European Zimbabwe!

 

[EM2]

The UK itemised their red lines simply because - with the exception of the Irish border - a Brexit without them would be Brexit in name only.

Brexit in name only is still Brexit, and fulfills the question asked in the referendum. Anything else is our decision.

 

[YorkshireBear]

First in line for trade deals with the US. Do we think the trade deals will be favourable to us or the massive bargaining power of the US?

Hope I'm wrong, infact considering what some think the damage will be to the economy I hope I'm wrong about all of it.