Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Takhisis]

Just like the 2016 referendum, eh?

That's not a ruling by a sovereign court, but a consultation of the Will of the People™.

#parliamentarysovereignty

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, yes. Surely a ref has different dynamic than a court ruling. A full cancelation of brexit can only realistically happen by a second ref with such a result.
Catch22: full cancelation needs a ref, but you dont have the time for a ref untill full cancelation is no longer an option.

 

[mitsho]

No, not at all. The British (and most other countries) don't have binding referendums. Rather what they have are consultations. Again, I feel like an expert as a Swiss, but Californians may pitch in as well. To make a "referendum" work, it needs to be clear to the letter what you are voting on. Otherwise you would be better off to do official opinion polls on a range of issues. But unless you are not perfectly clear on what people are voting on (and that means a text of law to be put into the books if there's a yes), you end up with chaos. Case in point: Brexit.

So no, you can reverse it without a referendum, since the UK doesn't have those elements of direct democracy. And if you are doing one, it would need to be done correctly this time.

But yes, the Tories can't really reverse it by themselves either. It is their project after all, so I guess: Leave and Re-apply in five years?

 

[Kyriakos]

It isnt just the tories. Voting something and then cancelling without a second vote of the same type has wider implications. Which is why you hardly see any half-reasonable british politician arguing for a cancelation without a second ref.
Only blairite spin doctors and assorted charlatans argue for cancelation without a second ref and a remain result there.

 

[Arakhor]

Only blairite spin doctors and assorted charlatans argue for cancelation without a second ref and a remain result there.

No True Scotsman, eh?

 

[Kyriakos]

No True Scotsman, eh?

Isti mirant brexit

 

[mitsho]

Really, how do you know? There are no rules written down and without such, it is largely due to the whims of the moment, how any move will. Be regarded. That's why it is so incredibly important to note down the process first before doing politics and thats what we call democracy and this is why it is so incredibly boring usually. (and why populists are successful - they offer easy explanations to complex systems).

I repeat, since the UK only has traditions instead of constitutional hard rules, you absolutely could do whatever. I can imagine a scenario where the queen stepping in and vetoing something could be welcomed if the popular opinion is in her regard (but the parliament had propelled a minority to power). That's not democratic.

 

[Kyriakos]

The point isnt legal; it is about consequences of cancelling stuff by less popular venue. No one seems to care about legality; this is politics.

 

[Hrothbern]

IF the May deal is voted down AND IF new elections would be held with Corbyn winning the government.
Just in time before March 29.
No real time left for changing that deal... just a small improvement, completely plus-compatible to the May deal. (something with having "a say" in something)
AND IF Corbyn would again put up the May deal for a vote in the Parliament, with to his Labour base the (also election campaign) promise that he will deliver, during negotiations in that transition time of the May+ Withdrawal deal, a good deal for a future EU relation, that will be put to a referendum with Rejoin as second choice.

Will the Tory MP's vote No to that May+ Withdrawal deal just before March 29, when Corbyn is PM ?

EDIT
Yes I know that many people think that Corbyn is only kind of threatening with his "election" and has possibly already given up to believe in it, if not just avoiding elections, to avoid the **** of being responsible for Brexit and to pick up the voters in an election after the Tories completely screwed everything.

But the question remains in case new elections would come with Corbyn in charge before March 29.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Have you counted the number of IFs (explicit or implicit) in that statement?

 

[Hrothbern]

Have you counted the number of IFs (explicit or implicit) in that statement?

I know. It is just like chess
Only two relevant IF's. That the May deal goes down seems rather probable to me right now.
Mind the EDIT BTW.
And even IF May would win that vote, will she then stay in charge, be able to avoid new elections ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I don't regard it as May's deal to deliver Brexit, I regard it as one of Michael Barnier's variant deals to prevent Exit.

If the UK Parliament votes for it, it doesn't matter who is Prime Minister, they'd merely be a front for Brussels rule.

Added by EDIT

What is possible is that IF the so called withdrawal agreement is voted down, the UK Parliament
MIGHT vote to ask the EU for a six months extension to undertake another UK referendum.
The EU MIGHT agree, and IF the EU improved its offer, the referendum MIGHT change the outcome.

IFs = 2, MIGHTs = 3 i.e. five conditionals.

Now that process MIGHT include a general election too. I.e. six (6) conditionals.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why 'change' the outcome?
Or do you mean that the new ref will have may's deal and no deal brexit as the two options?
Cause imo there arent many people who care to have a ref on just that. On the other hand, i am starting to think that britain has picked up quite the sattelite mentality. Yet still imo a new ref with remain (not a possible rejoin) is very unlikely due to a combination of time, popular and face-losing factors.

 

[Arakhor]

If the UK Parliament votes for it, it doesn't matter who is Prime Minister, they'd merely be a front for Brussels rule.

Whilst this particular hyperbole never was true before Brexit, it's only going to be slightly less untrue under the Withdrawal terms.

 

[innonimatu]

What is possible is that IF the so called withdrawal agreement is voted down, the UK Parliament
MIGHT vote to ask the EU for a six months extension to undertake another UK referendum.
The EU MIGHT agree, and IF the EU improved its offer, the referendum MIGHT change the outcome.

IFs = 2, MIGHTs = 3 i.e. five conditionals.

Now that process MIGHT include a general election too. I.e. six (6) conditionals.

I believe that it would be politically extremely hard for the EU to agree to such an extension, because of the elections for the EP. Would the UK elect new representatives or not? As members they are required to have representation there.
That is one issue everyone would rather avoid.

 

[Yeekim]

It isnt just the tories. Voting something and then cancelling without a second vote of the same type has wider implications.

The point isnt legal; it is about consequences of cancelling stuff by less popular venue.

For once I do agree with Kyriakos, and in a Brexit thread no less!
It is a Christmas miracle!

 

[Hrothbern]

I don't regard it as May's deal to deliver Brexit, I regard it as one of Michael Barnier's variant deals to prevent Exit.

If the UK Parliament votes for it, it doesn't matter who is Prime Minister, they'd merely be a front for Brussels rule.

Added by EDIT

What is possible is that IF the so called withdrawal agreement is voted down, the UK Parliament
MIGHT vote to ask the EU for a six months extension to undertake another UK referendum.
The EU MIGHT agree, and IF the EU improved its offer, the referendum MIGHT change the outcome.

IFs = 2, MIGHTs = 3 i.e. five conditionals.

Now that process MIGHT include a general election too. I.e. six (6) conditionals.

I do not think that the EU is inclined to extend Art 50.
Westminster choose to run down the clock. Not only May or the factions of the Tories... but Corbyn as well. Each for its own political power struggle interests.
The positions for the participants of the EU-UK negotiations, were very much clear already before triggering Art 50. The only unknowns what a snap election would deliver and whether the EU would fold because of internal division. What a waste of time it was. And what an abuse of the democracy in the UK to not use that time to find a common ground in Westminster in deliberation with all stakeholders and especially with the UK people. They got a show.

And do mind that the May deal is only a Withdrawal deal enabling a transition time of 2-4 years without economical disruption and NOT a future trade deal.
That's why I do not think that the May deal is worth voting upon in a referendum because it outlines nothing about the future trade relationship of the EU-UK.
It is imo only once there is a future trading deal, negotiated and agreed between EU-UK, that it makes sense to ask the UK people the final direction for the next generation(s).

If the people would be forced into a referendum by Westminster, and if the EU would accomodate... what would that deliver the UK people and the EU ???
IF 52% would vote Remain ? What then ? See in another couple of years again a referendum when polls show >50% Leave and the government of that moment calls again for a referendum ?
What nonsense. Why would the EU join May and Corbyn in whipping their MP members in obedience and deceiving the UK people ? Why would the EU join the power struggle between May and Corbyn ???
Membership of the EU is intended as something longlasting and needs a solid base to start with.
If in the coming weeks the polls show that there is a big majority for any of the possible directions, than Westrminster gets away with its failure.
When polls show that a really big majority would be in favor of a referendum and would vote for the May deal... Westminster is again saved by the bell and can vote yes on that deal...
but when polls clearly show that the big majority of the people would also vote Remain.....
only then it makes sense for the EU to give that 6 months time.
And when these IF's do not happen... forget about that 6 months Art 50 extension from the EU.

=>
When the May deal is voted down, Westminster has to find domestic solutions or faces the risk of crashing out to either no-deal or revoking Art 50. The UK people as a whole will not like either, unless there is a big change in their opinions.
And elections are therefore the logical next step.
Let's see who has the stomach for that.

 

[Silurian]

Unless the government collapses I am not sure how an election will come about.

As is noted May has run down the clock.
How will they be viewed if they walk away from the mess they have created.
Many of their voters are likely to stay at home, they will have problems with activists not supporting the MPs and they may have problems raising funds.
They are likely to get slaughtered.

 

[Hrothbern]

Unless the government collapses I am not sure how an election will come about.

As is noted May has run down the clock.
How will they be viewed if they walk away from the mess they have created.
Many of their voters are likely to stay at home, they will have problems with activists not supporting the MPs and they may have problems raising funds.
They are likely to get slaughtered.

yes
But if the Tories get slaughtered... who is going to win the elections ?
If it's Labour... the hot potato is burning their hands !
That could be an opportunity for Labour... and it could be a disaster, because it comes too early (before the Tories swallowed the responsibility for their Brexit before March 29).
And as in that post 3-4 back: what could Labour else decide than to put forward the May deal for a vote with a miniscule change ?
The only thing that could be different is that the EU would give time for the new PM, the new government.
But still... once Labour engages in a really other deal... they get the full resoponsibility for everything that goes wrong... get fully exposed to their own party infighting.
I see that as a big risk for Labour.
It could very well make the Tories the real winner in elections 4 year later.

 

[Silurian]

Which is why some sort of no deal now looks most likely.

It is too late to hold a referendum before 29 March because of the difficulties in getting the question(s) agreed. It would be no good to hold a referendum if people do not understand the question.