[Politics] Brexit

[One Love]

We will leave the EU and can then move on eh?

Limp on

 

[Westdene Seagull]

That FT piece is extraordinary. Just think about it for a second; the FT, the FT, the bastion of Conservatism and the voice of business is calling for, however temporary, a Labour government led by the most left-wing leader the party has had for 35 years. I think that's the most profound indication of how bad Johnson's move has been.

The FT has divided loyalties. On one hand as you say it's all for Conservatism but on the other it supports staying in the EU - must be a tricky time for the FT.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I think the most disappointing and frustrating thing is the amount of brain power within Parliament that has been wasted on scuppering and sabotage that could have been used positively to create the best possible exit. I feel that a constant refusal to accept that we are leaving combined with a will to delay and destroy any exit strategy has distracted some great minds from offering constructive advice and planning for the future.

 

[shingle]

I think the most disappointing and frustrating thing is the amount of brain power within Parliament that has been wasted on scuppering and sabotage that could have been used positively to create the best possible exit. I feel that a constant refusal to accept that we are leaving combined with a will to delay and destroy any exit strategy has distracted some great minds from offering constructive advice and planning for the future.

Depressingly spot on.

 

[shingle]

It’s called fact and political analysis, seemingly concepts a lot of a Brexiteers seem to struggle with.

Let me break it down for you:

In the GE in 2017 the votes were as follows

CON Conservative 42.4
LAB Labour 40.0
LD Liberal Democrat 7.4
SNP Scottish National Party 3.0
UKIP UKIP 1.8
GRN Green Party 1.6

So right off the bat, 52% of the electorate voted for either a soft Brexit (Labour - 40%) or to Remain (Lib Dems - 7.4%, SNP - 3%, Greens - 1.6%)

In the EU elections;

View attachment 114783

Graphics like the above, whilst sidelining both the Tories and Labour (don't worry we'll come back to them two in a minute) show that 5.9 million voting unambiguously pro-Brexit and 6.8 million voting for remain parties, including 884,000 from the SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. So, that's 40.4% to remain and 34.9% in favour of a 'hard' Brexit.

Thing's get trickier when you factor in both the Tories and Labour. As I said in a previous post, it can be argued that both parties retain some support across the Brexit divide. Various pollsters came up with their own formula for how to account for those who stubbornly stuck to the traditional two main parties. It has been suggested, and this is where that political analysis comes in, that Tory voters were 80% pro-leave and that a majority of Labour voters – 60% – supported remain, and even if that figure is skewed, Labour are still a 'soft' Brexit option at the very least.

That yields 2.1 million more for leave composed of 1.2 million Conservatives and 938,000 Labour voters and 1.7 million more for remain made up from 302,000 Tories and 1.4 million for Jeremy Corbyn’s party. Applying that to the totals, that would produce 8.1m votes for leave and 8.7m to remain.

Or to put that another way: 47% for leave and a fraction over 50% for remain (the exclusion of minor parties with less than 100,000 votes nationwide is why the figures don’t add up to 100%): a narrow remain win by 586,000 votes.

More Guardian bullshit and interpretations..... Yawn

 

[beorhthelm]

It’s called fact and political analysis,

there's an oxymoron. i enjoyed your analysis and in particular the unattributed and unverified proportions of Tory/Labour voters assigned to "leave", required to edge the remain support to 50%.

the only real conclusion from the voting patterns of both the last GE and the EU elections is in favour of leave of some sort - agree? i would rather remain, but if thats the consensus of the people how is it best to deliver this policy?

 

[wellquickwoody]

I think we are at a stage (as a country and on this thread) where we are painting ourselves into corners. By this I mean that there is a total refusal to acknowledge the flaws in 'our sides' arguments and tactics. More specifically the outrage of Leavers (which some would say is OTT) on the Johnson's Parliamentary ploy (which is clearly what it is) is met by total denial (laced with insults) by Brexiteers. It's as if the 'end' (leaving the EU) justifies just about any means adopted for its achievements.

I find this to be highly unpleasant and toxic. There must be some on the Leave side who both recognise and criticise the tactics adopted by Johnson? Would it hurt them to say so? Where would they draw the line on what is acceptable? Is there a line - or is it Brexit at any cost? OK - we know that it will cost us in economic terms, but riding roughshod over the constitution takes it to another level. At worst this is sinister.

From a passionate remainer, Boris is doing the right thing in attempting to bring 3 years plus of uncertainty to an end. However it ends up.

 

[Flex Your Head]

The Conservative party’s 2017 election manifesto, while repeating the misguided mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, pledged to secure “the best possible deal for Britain . . . delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit”

 

[Wellesley]

Well known leftie agitators - The Financial Times - take a very dim view of Johnson's flagrant disregard for democracy:

"Boris Johnson has detonated a bomb under the constitutional apparatus of the United Kingdom. The prime minister’s request to the Queen to suspend parliament for up to five weeks, ostensibly to prepare a new legislative programme, is without modern precedent. It is an intolerable attempt to silence parliament until it can no longer halt a disastrous crash-out by the UK from the EU on October 31. The seat of British democracy, long admired worldwide, is being denied a say on the most consequential decision facing the country in more than four decades. So, too, are the British people — in whose name Mr Johnson claims to be acting. It is time for parliamentarians to bring down his government in a no-confidence vote, paving the way for an election in which the people can express their will.

Britain’s representative government is an exercise in deliberative democracy which involves discussion, negotiation and inevitable compromises. It vests the power to take decisions on behalf of voters in MPs, and allows them to deliberate on matters of detail — and in the case of Brexit, the most complex demerger in postwar history, detail matters. As John Stuart Mill wrote of representative democracy: “Their part is to indicate wants, to be an organ for popular demands, and a place of adverse discussion for all opinions relating to public matters . . . and, to check by criticism, and eventually by withdrawing their support, those high public officers who really conduct the public business.”

History has shown that charlatans, demagogues and would-be dictators have little time for representative government. They seek ways around parliament before concluding it is an inconvenience. Mr Johnson may not be a tyrant, but he has set a dangerous precedent. He and the cabal around him who have chosen this revolutionary path should be careful what they wish for.

The prime minister’s protestations that he is doing nothing abnormal are as disingenuous as the claims plastered across the bus from which he fronted the Leave campaign in 2016. Proroguing parliament ahead of a Queen’s Speech is established procedure, but for one or two weeks, not five. A temporary recess during September’s party conferences is normal — though some parliamentary business continues even then. A brief prorogation could have been timed to coincide with conference season.

There is no legal or administrative justification for a complete five-week cessation of parliament’s activities ahead of a Queen’s Speech. Mr Johnson is using constitutional chicanery to thwart a parliament that he knows has a majority against his chosen policy. The prime minister will argue that the credibility of his threat to leave the EU without an accord unless Brussels agrees to rewrite Britain’s withdrawal deal is undermined if MPs are doing their best to stop him. Yet to muzzle parliament as part of a reckless negotiating ploy is an act of constitutional vandalism.

While this newspaper is no supporter of plebiscites, it has maintained the view that the outcome of the 2016 referendum should be implemented, but in a way that limits as far as possible the harm to the UK’s economy, security and national standing. The referendum delivered no mandate to ram through the most extreme form of Brexit. The Conservative party’s 2017 election manifesto, while repeating the misguided mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, pledged to secure “the best possible deal for Britain . . . delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit”. Mr Johnson became prime minister thanks only to the votes of 92,000 Tory party members. No premier who has assumed power outside a general election has ever deviated so radically from his party’s previous platform, nor sought to pursue a step with such grave implications.

If Mr Johnson’s prorogation ploy succeeds, Britain will forfeit any right to lecture other countries on their democratic shortcomings. The UK’s constitutional arrangements have long relied on conventions. The danger existed that an unscrupulous leader could trample on such conventions. That has not happened, in the modern era, until now.

Parliamentarians must seize their opportunity next week to assert the will of the Commons against that of the prime minister. The brief period for which they will sit may be too short to pass legislation demanding a delay to the UK’s EU departure. Those opposed to a no-deal Brexit must then cast aside their differences and pass a motion of no confidence in the government. This is unpalatable for even the most ardent Tory Remainers, and others such as the Liberal Democrats, since ousting Mr Johnson in time to affect the Brexit process may also require the creation of a caretaker government under Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn — an outcome they rightly fear. The overriding priority, however, must be to safeguard British democracy. Mr Johnson might seek to ignore such a vote and try to hang on until after Brexit. This would be an even greater constitutional affront than his actions this week. It would confirm that Britain has a despot in Downing Street.

The standard path for governments facing parliaments that prevent them from implementing their policies is to take the matter to the country. The prime minister might then stand on a “no deal” platform, potentially in a pact with the Brexit party. If he won, Britain would have to respect the result and live with the consequences. Opposition parties would have to use their own strenuous campaigning and electoral pacts to prevent such an outcome. Mr Johnson is framing the current battle as one between parliament and the people. If he is confident of the people’s backing, he should be ready to test this with voters in an election — rather than making a cavalier attempt to frustrate the parliamentary democracy that has been the foundation of Britain’s prosperity and stability."

Would love to know what your thoughts are, [MENTION=28109]Wellesley[/MENTION] [MENTION=1365]Westdene Seagull[/MENTION] [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] [MENTION=14132]Two Professors[/MENTION] [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION]

https://www.ft.com/content/9dbc7852-c9b2-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0

My thoughts are: "I'm f***** if I'm reading all that"

 

[Simster]

I think the most disappointing and frustrating thing is the amount of brain power within Parliament that has been wasted on scuppering and sabotage that could have been used positively to create the best possible exit. I feel that a constant refusal to accept that we are leaving combined with a will to delay and destroy any exit strategy has distracted some great minds from offering constructive advice and planning for the future.

Probably worth pointing out that plenty of leavers voted against Theresa May's deal time and time again. How come they escape your disappointment then?

We have gone beyond Leave vs Remain now. We should leave, but not in a way that clearly risks vandalising the country yet appears to suit wealthy people with various vested interests in leaving without considering the consequences of doing so. If the Irish border goes back up and we see a return to bombs and guns, if jobs are lost as our goods become uncompetitive in the giant single market on our doorstep, if people end up starving because of price hikes to basic food prices, I pray to God it is only these selfish public school dictating tossers who end up suffering the consequences, but it won't be. It's not Brexiteers I'm angry with, (certainly not anymore), it is undemocratic people like BJ and JRM who are running the state like a dictatorship to suit themselves.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

More Guardian bullshit and interpretations..... Yawn

I mean, thanks for proving my point and all but come, you can't be that ignorant surely?

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1166810390552023041[/TWEET]

 

[A1X]

We will leave the EU and can then move on eh?

Oh dear, how deliciously naive.

The more disorderly Brexit is now, the longer it will come to dominate British political discourse. A No Deal Brexit means we are looking at DECADES of wrangling with basically everyone, between Europe, the US, China, India, Russia, everyone.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

there's an oxymoron. i enjoyed your analysis and in particular the unattributed and unverified proportions of Tory/Labour voters assigned to "leave", required to edge the remain support to 50%.

the only real conclusion from the voting patterns of both the last GE and the EU elections is in favour of leave of some sort - agree? i would rather remain, but if thats the consensus of the people how is it best to deliver this policy?

I never claimed they didn't. I claimed that the majority of the electorate favoured remain or a soft Brexit (I feel I've made this abundantly clear on several occasions) over a 'hard' or No Deal Brexit. Brexit may be the 'will of the people' but as no one seems to have the foggiest idea on how the implement it, so it stands to reason that remaining, if nothing else, is the safest option. Instead, Brexiteers seem determined to deliver No Deal even though that is not what the majority of the electorate seemingly want.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[TWEET]1166810390552023041[/TWEET]

I tried to point out that the Settlement scheme isn't working properly a few days ago, but was sneered at and told it was so easy, and nobody had been rejected even when I said I knew my friend in Shoreham had problems.
I was even accused of making up this friend because I wouldn't post personal details about her.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I tried to point out that the Settlement scheme isn't working properly a few days ago, but was sneered at and told it was so easy, and nobody had been rejected even when I said I knew my friend in Shoreham had problems.
I was even accused of making up this friend because I wouldn't post personal details about her.

Even Daniel Hannan can see there's problems with it. Who'd have guessed that with The Home Office administering it?

[tweet]1166850898179624967[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Even Daniel Hannan can see there's problems with it. Who'd have guessed that with The Home Office administering it?

[tweet]1166850898179624967[/tweet]

Yes, and Patel is trying to do away with the deadline of December 2020, by saying No Deal means a cut off on 31st October.
No wonder people are heartbroken. This is people's lives they are playing 'games' with.

 

[vegster]

Tim Laughton on 5Live now... he's sad that Ruth Davidson is standing down but he's not that bothered just so long as we can commit political and economic suicide.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I tried to point out that the Settlement scheme isn't working properly a few days ago, but was sneered at and told it was so easy, and nobody had been rejected even when I said I knew my friend in Shoreham had problems.
I was even accused of making up this friend because I wouldn't post personal details about her.

You weren't sneered at - you were asked where your friend was in the process given government figures show nobody has been rejected. You used the Head of OFSTED ( although it was their Head of Research in reality ) as an example but failed to point out he wasn't actually rejected but instead asked for further information which he supplied and then got Settled Status. You also claimed a 30% rejection rate. So given your false 'facts' it seems reasonable that someone might challenge you on your statement about your friend. If you didn't want to discuss her case why mention her in the first place ? It's a simple question has she really been rejected or has she been asked for more information ?

 

[Klaas]

Even Daniel Hannan can see there's problems with it. Who'd have guessed that with The Home Office administering it?

[tweet]1166850898179624967[/tweet]

Bloody hell. If EVEN that **** is pointing out problems with it, it must be an utter shit show.