EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

bramling said:

As regards Johnson, he is our prime minister and he was one of two candidates put forward by Conservative MPs, all of whom are elected. Likewise if people aren’t happy with Johnson they are ultimately guaranteed an opportunity to vote him out of power, even if not straight away.

Click to expand...

But he has hijacked the government and changed the policy it was elected on, with no mandate from either Parliament or the people. He may still be able to achieve irreversible damage in the form of Brexit before he is turfed out. And looking at the alternative many people may believe Boris is the lesser of two evils.

If you consider Johnson's election by MPs to be legitimate, then Parliament's attempts to stop a policy it disagrees with are equally so.

bramling said:

At the end of the day Johnson feels a lot more relevant to me than Juncker or Tusk, both politically and geographically.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there. The greatest failings of recent UK policy such as austerity, the Iraq war, poll tax, even rail privatization have all been thought up and implemented by UK governments with no influence from Brussels. The fact is that the EU carries very little responsibility for the things that have made life worse for UK citizens - it's just been a convenient scapegoat for politicians and the tabloids over a period of decades.

bramling said:

As regards Johnson, he is our prime minister and he was one of two candidates put forward by Conservative MPs, all of whom are elected.

Click to expand...

Hang on a second.

You can't criticise the "undemocratic EU"- commissioners are appointed by national governments and you get to vote for your MEPs- and then tolerate the situation where our government has been decided by the vote of Tory party members only.

bramling said:

I seem to remember even our government weren’t happy with Juncker’s appointment at the time.

Click to expand...

We had a vote, we lost. Get over it!

edwin_m said:

But he has hijacked the government and changed the policy it was elected on, with no mandate from either Parliament or the people. He may still be able to achieve irreversible damage in the form of Brexit before he is turfed out. And looking at the alternative many people may believe Boris is the lesser of two evils.

If you consider Johnson's election by MPs to be legitimate, then Parliament's attempts to stop a policy it disagrees with are equally so.

I agree with you there. The greatest failings of recent UK policy such as austerity, the Iraq war, poll tax, even rail privatization have all been thought up and implemented by UK governments with no influence from Brussels. The fact is that the EU carries very little responsibility for the things that have made life worse for UK citizens - it's just been a convenient scapegoat for politicians and the tabloids over a period of decades.

Click to expand...

Has he though, the government were elected to deliver Brexit. Obviously there is no real definition on what that is, which is where the problem is. I am against Brexit personally but do share his belief that we need to get this issue sorted, the uncertainty and dithering is not at all good for the country we need to make a decision and put it into action (good or bad) we can then start dealing with the consequences.

Both major parties last time stood on 'delivering Brexit' and won 80% of the vote, the Tories have unsuccessfully tried to do that through Mays deal and now Boris's shenanigans.

The real party not delivering here is the Labour Party, primarily elected in the North and Midlands in leave constituencies on the basis they would deliver Brexit, not block in at every opportunity like they have. They have now pretty much admitted that Mays deal is the best deal we are likely to get, have suggested something similar but persistently blocked it, and say whatever they do negotiate they will campaign again. What a bunch of blithering idiots. They should be punished by these voters.

I don't agree with Brexit but at least the Tories have mostly abided by what they said they would do, and the Lib Dems have remained consistent. How anyone can consider voting for Corbyn and his disingenuous bunch of lying turncoat cretins is beyond me.

StaffsWCML said:

The real party not delivering here is the Labour Party, primarily elected in the North and Midlands in leave constituencies on the basis they would deliver Brexit, not block in at every opportunity like they have.

Click to expand...

The facts don't support that contention.

In the second round of indicative votes they were mostly in favour of:

• A confirmatory on May's deal (203 in favour vs 253 Conservatives against)
• Leaving the EU but remaining in the Customs Union (230 in favour vs 236 Conservatives against)
• 'Common Market 2.0' (185 for vs 228 Conservatives against)

Again, at risk of repeating myself, if not for Conservative MPs we could already have left the EU with a deal.

Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/indicative-votes-2-0-where-did-support-lie/

najaB said:

The facts don't support that contention.

In the second round of indicative votes they were mostly in favour of:

• A confirmatory on May's deal (203 in favour vs 253 Conservatives against)
• Leaving the EU but remaining in the Customs Union (230 in favour vs 236 Conservatives against)
• 'Common Market 2.0' (185 for vs 228 Conservatives against)

Again, at risk of repeating myself, if not for Conservative MPs we could already have left the EU with a deal.

Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/indicative-votes-2-0-where-did-support-lie/

Click to expand...

There is no doubt there has been a lot of bluster in parliament from both parties, May as a leader was weak and walked on persistently by her rebels. However, Labour have no clear defined policy on Brexit. At least now even though I disagree Boris has defined his plan. There are too many extreme right wingers in the Tories that want a hard Brexit.

I am against Brexit. But I do think that being in a customs union with absolutely no say over anything is a pretty pointless exercise. We would still be signed up to most of the EU stuff without any decision making ability, absolutely making us a vassal state. This really is the worst of both worlds for a country like the UK.

StaffsWCML said:

However, Labour have no clear defined policy on Brexit.

Click to expand...

They have, however, voted more consistently for leaving with a deal than the Conservatives.

StaffsWCML said:

But I do think that being in a customs union with absolutely no say over anything is a pretty pointless exercise.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why their position has alternately been "leave with a deal" or stay.

StaffsWCML said:

But I do think that being in a customs union with absolutely no say over anything is a pretty pointless exercise. We would still be signed up to most of the EU stuff without any decision making ability, absolutely making us a vassal state. This really is the worst of both worlds for a country like the UK.

Click to expand...

I doubt that Norway and Switserland see themselfs as 'vassal states'.

Do you really believe that the UK could exist without any obligation to other countries (including the EU) ? After all, when a British company wants to sell its products in the EU, these products have to be of the same standards as required by the EU. In other words: a British-build car must be for right-hand drive if you want to sell it in Germany or France and the UK will have no say in this. Does this make the UK a vassal state?

The problem is that when the UK stays out of the customs union, these cars will be much more expensive in the EU. Is that the better option?

najaB said:

They have, however, voted more consistently for leaving with a deal than the Conservatives.

Agreed. Which is why their position has alternately been "leave with a deal" or stay.

Click to expand...

Their previous policy was to negotiate some kind of Customs Union deal, which would be pointless. Leaving in name only. The idea deal is some kind of Canada + deal, which the EU are unlikely to offer us. As far as I am aware Labour have never pursued anything other than 'a' customs union but not the customs union. Now they claim the EU wont agree to anything other than Mays deal so they would probably rehash most of that but then some of them would campaign against it. Corbyn is a leaver, most of their seats are leave areas, Corbyn needs to leave to implement some of his policies not allowed under EU state aid. The party membership are largely pro EU as are most of the MPs. Quite frankly their policy is utterly baffling, misleading and dishonest. The only consistent party are the Lib Dems.

gysev said:

I doubt that Norway and Switserland see themselfs as 'vassal states'.

Do you really believe that the UK could exist without any obligation to other countries (including the EU) ? After all, when a British company wants to sell its products in the EU, these products have to be of the same standards as required by the EU. In other words: a British-build car must be for right-hand drive if you want to sell it in Germany or France and the UK will have no say in this. Does this make the UK a vassal state?

The problem is that when the UK stays out of the customs union, these cars will be much more expensive in the EU. Is that the better option?

Click to expand...

Switzerland is in the Single Market but not customs union, Norway is in the Single Market and EEA but not customs union. I think the Single Market/EEA model does give some flexibility on trade, more frictionless than a customs union. Obviously the UK is much larger than either of these countries.

Labour are proposing a customs union, Turkey has a customs union with the EU and trade is far from frictionless there. A customs union is not actually a good solution at all, we abide by rules we have no say over. I think there is much confusion over what a customs union actually is, its is about lack of customs checks on good not on trade/tariffs. One of the reasons Labour policy is so unfathomable is they don't actually understand what they are on about even.

No, I do not think the UK should be without obligation to other countries. I strongly believe being in the EU is the correct thing. My point is that being in a Customs Union is actually a less autonomous situation than we are in now, which seems dumb. Given the democratic vote we had we should try to find a solution that wont be too damaging, but also it must have some purpose. Just saying we are going to have Brexit but actually have even less power over our own destiny is dumb, in that case in the long term a hard Brexit may prove to be more beneficial to the nation even given the large amount of short term pain it would cause.

StaffsWCML said:

the government were elected to deliver Brexit.

Click to expand...

I don't remember voting for a Government run by Boris Johnson and filled with his hard-right lackeys.

Did I doze off and miss an election?

StaffsWCML said:

Their previous policy was to negotiate some kind of Customs Union deal, which would be pointless. Leaving in name only.

Click to expand...

...which is broadly speaking the deal other countries, such as Norway and Switzerland have. The Swiss even have Schengen!

And yes, I know EFTA is not strictly a customs union, but it pretty much acts as one. There isn't free trade of goods with Turkey, hence why I can bring duty-free tabs back with me from Dalaman.

LINO is seen as a bad thing, and I'm not sure why. You wanted Brexit, you got Brexit.

This is the problem with "Brexit Means Brexit". The promised unicorns simply can't be delivered, one can't have one's cake and eat it. So there are compromises. We accept EU rules for strong trade (and ironically have to accept more EU laws after Brexit) and it's LINO, or we park a Transit full of Semtex under the whole relationship and we have blissful autonomy but a car wreck of an economy.

The real issue is Vote Leave promised the unicorns and anyone who says unicorns don't exist is a Remoaner Traitor. Remember how blissfully easy it was going to be to negotiate a deal on our terms, because the EU need us? Michael Gove conveniently doesn't remember saying any of this, he conveniently blames Labour.

n

Arctic Troll said:

I don't remember voting for a Government run by Boris Johnson and filled with his hard-right lackeys.

Did I doze off and miss an election?

Click to expand...

No neither did I.

We should have an election, I agree. Comrade Corbyn has however changed his mind because he knows he would probably lose because he is an incoherent far left extremist, terrorist sympathising idiot.

A load of MPS have decided to move sides mid parliament. The Labour party have been elected on a manifesto to deliver Brexit especially by their voters in the North and Midlands and have done pretty much everything they can to stop Brexit or water it down so its not Brexit.

I don't care much for Brexit at all. However, like many I should think, I am sick of it now. We need to make a decision and get on with it! and deal with whatever consequences that causes. That side of Boris's rhetoric I can sympathise with.

Whatever we implement now we are likely to be in a situation where 50% of the population are no happy with the outcome.

StaffsWCML said:

We should have an election, I agree. Comrade Corbyn has however changed his mind because he knows he would probably lose

Click to expand...

Why should Corbyn agree an election on Johnson's timescale and at Johnson's whim? It would be political suicide, regardless of your own popularity or lack of it, especially as the Conservatives are significantly better funded.

If Johnson hadn't sacked his majority he'd be able to call an election off his own bat, like May did.

StaffsWCML said:

Whatever we implement now we are likely to be in a situation where 50% of the population are no happy with the outcome.

Click to expand...

Definitely. And all over a political idea that nobody really gave two hoots about until the referendum was promised.

But as the 50% who want Brexit can't decide what sort of Brexit they want, sod them.

Arctic Troll said:

...which is broadly speaking the deal other countries, such as Norway and Switzerland have. The Swiss even have Schengen!

LINO is seen as a bad thing, and I'm not sure why. You wanted Brexit, you got Brexit.

This is the problem with "Brexit Means Brexit". The promised unicorns simply can't be delivered, one can't have one's cake and eat it. So there are compromises. We accept EU rules for strong trade (and ironically have to accept more EU laws after Brexit) and it's LINO, or we park a Transit full of Semtex under the whole relationship and we have blissful autonomy but a car wreck of an economy.

The real issue is Vote Leave promised the unicorns and anyone who says unicorns don't exist is a Remoaner Traitor. Remember how blissfully easy it was going to be to negotiate a deal on our terms, because the EU need us? Michael Gove conveniently doesn't remember saying any of this, he conveniently blames Labour.

Click to expand...

The other countries are in the single market. My understanding of Labours baffling policies is that they don't want to be in the single market freedom of good, services, capital and persons (mainly the persons bit to satisfy the voters in towns in the North Midlands. Both Norway (most of) and Switzerland are signed up to Schengen.

I fully agree Brexit is bad, but Labours policy is neither here nor there, its baffling and incoherent. I don't want Brexit at all, so I only have one party to consider at present. I could never vote for Corbyn's Labour anyway.

A no deal impact will likely cause a European wide recession, if not a global recession. It is prudent to avoid it at all costs but I do understand the position of the EU. Its like we want the benefits of being in a club without paying he club fees. Odd.

Corbyn is a huge issue in this. If Labour would just put a moderate at their head, someone like a Blairite without a phony war, they'd win by a landslide. Yet they persist with a leader who is doing nothing but guaranteeing a Tory Government for the foreseeable future.

I actually quite like a lot of his policies (but not all of them) and did vote Labour at the last GE and would consider doing so again, but then my politics do lean a bit left at times. But he simply will not win an election.

Arctic Troll said:

Why should Corbyn agree an election on Johnson's timescale and at Johnson's whim? It would be political suicide, regardless of your own popularity or lack of it, especially as the Conservatives are significantly better funded.

If Johnson hadn't sacked his majority he'd be able to call an election off his own bat, like May did.

Click to expand...

He has been in charge a number of years. If he thinks his polices are so good and his Brexit policy makes any sense to the electorate he should support an election.

Really now Boris is getting himself into a position where to the Brexit voters he will looks like a hero in martyrdom. If he can paint Parliament and Corbyn as the reason for the Brexit delay, it means things will be worse for them further down the line. I think that is too political suicide. Of course Corbyn has been committing that for several years by continuously spouting incoherent drivel, he still hangs on due to momentum, Seamus Milne and the other far left string pullers.

Johnson is a buffoon, I don't agree with what he is doing but I understand why he is doing it.

StaffsWCML said:

If he thinks his polices are so good and his Brexit policy makes any sense to the electorate he should support an election.

Click to expand...

...and he does, just not at Johnson's whim.

I think that's a reasonable position to take. It's the position my party, the LibDems, have also taken.

StaffsWCML said:

Johnson is a buffoon, I don't agree with what he is doing but I understand why he is doing it.

Click to expand...

I understand why, it's the same position all Brexitists are taking. "Unicorns really do exist, it's not my fault the Traitors have taken them from you". It's the final position of the politically and intellectually stunted, which is why Brexit voters are lapping it up.

You do, however, fall into the trap of believing the same people in Northern towns voting Brexit are the same ones voting Labour. There may be an overlap, but not necessarily a complete overlap; turnout was much higher in the referendum and there are significant votes for other parties even in the heartlands.

Bletchleyite said:

I actually quite like a lot of his policies (but not all of them) and did vote Labour at the last GE and would consider doing so again, but then my politics do lean a bit left at times. But he simply will not win an election.

Click to expand...

They do need a decent centrist, it will never happen with the momentum mob, Milne and the union barrons running the show.

Some of the Labour policies are good.

Anything where they talk about seizing land, business and property starts to get into Venezuelan style economy crashing ground, of a level far worse than even the hardest Brexit. For the average person he is bad news, when he goes after the rich they will leave, when he goes after business jobs will be lost (they will leave or go bust), who is left for him to go after the average man if he is still lucky enough to have a job/home/garden after he has destroyed the economy.

Arctic Troll said:

...and he does, just not at Johnson's whim.

I think that's a reasonable position to take. It's the position my party, the LibDems, have also taken.

Click to expand...

Which is a good point. After all, the point of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was to prevent the Government from strategically timing an election to their benefit, but instead simply having it on a near-fixed date regardless of how things are going.

StaffsWCML said:

They do need a decent centrist, it will never happen with the momentum mob, Milne and the union barrons running the show.

Some of the Labour policies are good.

Anything where they talk about seizing land, business and property starts to get into Venezuelan style economy crashing ground, of a level far worse than even the hardest Brexit. For the average person he is bad news, when he goes after the rich they will leave, when he goes after business jobs will be lost (they will leave or go bust), who is left for him to go after the average man if he is still lucky enough to have a job/home/garden after he has destroyed the economy.

Click to expand...

I don't even feel that strongly about it, but fundamentally if we only have one electable party (as we do, the Tories) then democracy takes a massive beating.

StaffsWCML said:

Anything where they talk about seizing land

Click to expand...

Call it "investment in infrastructure" (say, HS2) and, hey presto, you've got the Tories' view of seizing land at an undervalue for gain.

It's all about branding innit.

Arctic Troll said:

If Johnson hadn't sacked his majority he'd be able to call an election off his own bat, like May did.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that the FTPA requires the support of 2/3rds of MPs (at least 434) to call an early election so whether he sacked people or not, Johnson would need the support of all sides of the house to call an election as all Conservative MPs alone cannot command the required majority

Geezertronic said:

My understanding is that the FTPA requires the support of 2/3rds of MPs (at least 434) to call an early election so whether he sacked people or not, Johnson would need the support of all sides of the house to call an election as all Conservative MPs alone cannot command the required majority

Click to expand...

Correct, though there would be a rather "not on" workaround of a vote of no confidence in himself which would require a simple "majority".

Bletchleyite said:

I don't even feel that strongly about it, but fundamentally if we only have one electable party (as we do, the Tories) then democracy takes a massive beating.

Click to expand...

I agree. I feel the Lib Dems are actually the only electable party at present.

Arctic Troll said:

Call it "investment in infrastructure" (say, HS2) and, hey presto, you've got the Tories' view of seizing land at an undervalue for gain.

It's all about branding innit.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if they are really gaining from any of these things though, especially as large swathes of HS2 are in Tory seats and are largely unpopular. Wasting a few billions on houses, they will probably give back when they cancel it is a little different to buying a private multi billion electricity company at a value they determine.

I am sure Labour would call it 'investment in infrastructure' too, building for the many not the few, repatriating gardens for the use of the many not the elite.

The opposition parties were very clear on why they were not going to participate in an election at this point, and that is because they don't trust Boris to hold it before the 31st October. After disbanding parliament the government gain the ability to unilaterally change the date of an election without having to have it agreed by any MPs. If they had agreed to the election last week, he could easily state brexit is more important, shift the election date to 2/11/2019 and let us crash out with absolutely no parliamentary oversight.

Put simply, they don't trust him and don't believe what he says.

dosxuk said:

The opposition parties were very clear on why they were not going to participate in an election at this point, and that is because they don't trust Boris to hold it before the 31st October. After disbanding parliament the government gain the ability to unilaterally change the date of an election without having to have it agreed by any MPs. If they had agreed to the election last week, he could easily state brexit is more important, shift the election date to 2/11/2019 and let us crash out with absolutely no parliamentary oversight.

Put simply, they don't trust him and don't believe what he says.

Click to expand...

Its still a little odd, I am sure the date could have been made official by a bill if they really wanted too.

Corbyn doesn't want an election because the public know he is a liar, he knows he would lose especially in Northern/Midlands areas.

Labour and Parliament are blocking and forcing Boris's hand. To be honest if he plays this right he will play the martyr, he could win a significant majority and do whatever he want to do if he promises to get it done but only if he has the majority in parliament to do so. Perhaps a dangerous game but it could work, he has shown he is not afraid of the dangerous game.

Again the opposition parties need to stand up and be counted, I am not sure how kicking the can down the road helps anyone.

One thing I have wondered, there may not be the time for it now but could the Government put a Mays Deal or No Deal referendum to the public a deliver on this result without parliamentary approval?

StaffsWCML said:

One thing I have wondered, there may not be the time for it now but could the Government put a Mays Deal or No Deal referendum to the public a deliver on this result without parliamentary approval?

Click to expand...

Not with any force. The Electroral Commission probably wouldn't handle it (the relevant 2000 act only discusses how to run referendums authorised by act of Parliament), so it'd presumably be run by the Conservative Party or some other private body. It's unlikely that Parliament would give the time of day to the results of a referendum held in this way.

StaffsWCML said:

Corbyn doesn't want an election because the public know he is a liar, he knows he would lose especially in Northern/Midlands areas.

Click to expand...

My constituency (Birmingham Hodge Hill) has had a Labour MP ever since it was created in 1983 and Liam Byrne won the last election with a majority of 81.1%. In fact 9 out of 10 Birmingham Constituencies have a Labour MP

However down the road in Solihull, they have a Conservative MP

Geezertronic said:

My understanding is that the FTPA requires the support of 2/3rds of MPs (at least 434) to call an early election so whether he sacked people or not, Johnson would need the support of all sides of the house to call an election as all Conservative MPs alone cannot command the required majority

Click to expand...

That is my understanding as well. But my understanding is also that a simple majority is enough to change the FTPA.

StaffsWCML said:

Its still a little odd, I am sure the date could have been made official by a bill if they really wanted too.

Click to expand...

That would require a separate motion to be put before parliament, votes under the FTPA are unamenable and therefore attaching a fixed date can't be done that way.

Such a motion would either need another rebel takeover of the parliamentary business, or the government to put in forward, neither of which there was time for with Boris' prorogration.