Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[gosub]

Any plausible brexit deal that may manages to cobble together and get accepted by the EU will clearly offer no benefits whatsoever over the UK's previous position - and in many ways will be worse.
The other option is crashing out with no deal - which would be very damaging all round.
As this becomes clear i think the whatever moral/democratic mandate that the referendum had will be put under severe stress. Because nobody - bar a handful of brexit headbangers who want to jump off a cliff edge - want either of those options.
I still think that a 2nd ref is where we will end up within a year - via all sorts of meltdowns and breakdowns and constitutional crises.

I suggest the the odds of you being wrong are roughly 52/48

 

[Winot]

Any plausible brexit deal that may manages to cobble together and get accepted by the EU will clearly offer no benefits whatsoever over the UK's previous position - and in many ways will be worse.
The other option is crashing out with no deal - which would be very damaging all round.
As this becomes clear i think the whatever moral/democratic mandate that the referendum had will be put under severe stress. Because nobody - bar a handful of brexit headbangers who want to jump off a cliff edge - want either of those options.
I still think that a 2nd ref is where we will end up within a year - via all sorts of meltdowns and breakdowns and constitutional crises.

To get to a position where a second ref is on the cards would need a revocation or extension of Art. 50.

Could either of those happen without the Government falling?

 

[Ranbay]

So there was a woman on the TV rolling her eyes at Farage but it turns out she voted leave...

that's all i know this week.

 

[Kaka Tim]

To get to a position where a second ref is on the cards would need a revocation or extension of Art. 50.

Could either of those happen without the Government falling?

no. but the government will fall before parliament allows the uk to crash out.

this is why may is trying the make the choice between "no deal crash out" or "my shitty deal" . but its a bluff and everyone knows it. fun times ahead.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In addition, although I have absolutely no objection in principle to a referendum on a supplementary question (specifically in this case, on a choice between ‘accept the eventual deal’ on the table or ‘reject the deal’ [resulting in a no deal Brexit]), I don’t think the campaign to have a second referendum is being run with that as its honest objective. I therefore am sceptical to the point of opposing a second referendum.

You are right of course that the main motivation of calls for a 2nd ref is to stop brexit.

I'm not so sure we are particularly obliged to adopt a position either way tbh. I didn't support the first referendum. The decision to hold one was nothing to do with me, and right from the start I questioned the idea of a govt calling for a vote on a change that it and the opposition party both formally opposed.

I don't really agree with your first bit, though. Why would the 2nd ref only be for a supplementary question. If you reject the deal, why should 'no deal' brexit be the only alternative on offer. The logic of offering 'remain' would be that the first vote didn't offer a specific idea of what brexit would look like. Now we have a specific brexit to offer - this is what it means - is that what you want? If not, 'scrap the idea' is a logical thing to offer as an alternative.

 

[Winot]

no. but the government will fall before parliament allows the uk to crash out.

this is why may is trying the make the choice between "no deal crash out" or "my shitty deal" . but its a bluff and everyone knows it. fun times ahead.

I agree. This is why Labour has to become clear on its position. Because sometime soon we might have a GE with Brexit as a key issue.

 

[not-bono-ever]

A whole new clusterfuck

UDI

Breakup of the union

Lovely

 

[brogdale]

I agree. This is why Labour has to become clear on its position. Because sometime soon we might have a GE with Brexit as a key issue.

May's way out of this will revolve around a certain number of the PLP making their position very clear...irrespective of what the party leadership says.

 

[Wilf]

I agree. This is why Labour has to become clear on its position. Because sometime soon we might have a GE with Brexit as a key issue.

I do think Lab should have been clear - for a long time. However, my guess is there will be a deal and it will pass through Parliament. If for no other reason, that's what usually happens.

 

[Pickman's model]

I do think Lab should have been clear - for a long time. However, my guess is there will be a deal and it will pass through Parliament. If for no other reason, that's what usually happens.

didn't happen with house of lords reform. and there's no reason to suppose this will be any different, imo.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not so sure we are particularly obliged to adopt a position either way tbh

My post wasn't calling on any "we" to adopt any position. It was me expressing my opinion, as it stands today. I don't require anyone else to stand by it.

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't really agree with your first bit, though. Why would the 2nd ref only be for a supplementary question. If you reject the deal, why should 'no deal' brexit be the only alternative on offer.

The question Leave or Remain has already been asked. Leave won. A second referendum might reasonably be held on the details of the deal, but to make it into Leave or Remain again two years on is like saying "do you really mean it?" repeatedly to someone who has already expressed their opinion. It is saying to the electorate "we asked, but we didn't really think you'd say that, so try again and this time say what we wanted". I voted Remain, but frankly in those circumstances I'd not only vote Leave, I'd actively campaign for it.

You've admitted "the main motivation of calls for a 2nd ref is to stop brexit". Your final paragraph is merely rationalising that goal.

None of this is to say you, or anyone else, must now support Brexit and desist from campaigning against it.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I do think Lab should have been clear - for a long time. However, my guess is there will be a deal and it will pass through Parliament. If for no other reason, that's what usually happens.

thing is nobody anywhere is going to want the any deal that may comes up with. As well as the brexiteers opposing it on the basis that its even worse then staying in the EU (cos it will mean the Uk is tied to their regs and paying into the pot whilst not having any decision making power) there is significant pressure from many different areas of power and influence to scrap brexit altogether and a 2nd ref as a result of mays faliure to get a deal through will be the way to do it.
Mays only chance of getting a deal through is by plp members rebelling agasint the whip - but labour brexiteers who would do that are few in number and labour leavers will rather see a 2nd ref.
I dont see any great popular or political support for Mays final deal outside of tory loyalists - its only purpose would be to keep her in power.
Those opposing it can feasibly argue that Mays deal is shit and is not what people voted for. MAy then takes the political hit for fucking up brexit.
What people voted for was a brexit that left the uk in a better position than in the EU. Thats was never ever going to happen no matter who was in charge. The uk might have got a less shit deal if the combined talents of may, daives and johnson had not been doing the negotiating - but it would still have been shit.

Lets remind ourselves again what people were promised-

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The question Leave or Remain has already been asked. Leave won. A second referendum might reasonably be held on the details of the deal, but to make it into Leave or Remain again two years on is like saying "do you really mean it?" repeatedly to someone who has already expressed their opinion. It is saying to the electorate "we asked, but we didn't really think you'd say that, so try again and this time say what we wanted". I voted Remain, but frankly in those circumstances I'd not only vote Leave, I'd actively campaign for it.

You've admitted "the main motivation of calls for a 2nd ref is to stop brexit". Your final paragraph is merely rationalising that goal.

None of this is to say you, or anyone else, must now support Brexit and desist from campaigning against it.

I don't think that's particularly coherent. So how do I vote, when I think brexit is a stupid idea and whatever deal there is I will object to parts of it while I can see that 'no deal' would probably be even worse?

See how polarising this shit is, how destructive it is? You'd actively campaign for leave in a second ref in my scenario. I'd be tempted to campaign for 'no deal' in yours. If the 'deal' involved new border controls, I probably would do so. I'm not voting for that. There certainly wouldn't be anything on the ballot paper that I would think is remotely the right thing to do. My answer, as is so often the case in votes, would be 'neither of the above, thankyou', so I would effectively be disenfranchised.

 

[Wilf]

thing is nobody anywhere is going to want the any deal that may comes up with. As well as the brexiteers opposing it on the basis that its even worse then staying in the EU (cos it will mean the Uk is tied to their regs and paying into the pot whilst not having any decision making power) there is significant pressure from many different areas of power and influence to scrap brexit altogether and a 2nd ref as a result of mays faliure to get a deal through will be the way to do it.
Mays only chance of getting a deal through is by plp members rebelling agasint the whip - but labour brexiteers who would do that are few in number and labour leavers will rather see a 2nd ref.
I dont see any great popular or political support for Mays final deal outside of tory loyalists - its only purpose would be to keep her in power.
Those opposing it can feasibly argue that Mays deal is shit and is not what people voted for. MAy then takes the political hit for fucking up brexit.
What people voted for was a brexit that left the uk in a better position than in the EU. Thats was never ever going to happen no matter who was in charge. The uk might have got a less shit deal if the combined talents of may, daives and johnson had not been doing the negotiating - but it would still have been shit.

Lets remind ourselves again what people were promised-

I agree with all of that in terms of it being a shit deal, worst possible position and the rest. But I'm coming at it with regard to how does a 2nd ref actually come about. earlier in the thread I've argued the only way for that to come about is if somebody sees it in their interest to push it through (leadership group or a party). May certainly isn't going to go for a 2nd ref, even though she never wanted brexit. Her only rationale now, esp. after fucking up the 2017 election, is to deliver brexit. Nothing else, doesn't matter how bad it is, she just doesn't want to add another (and bigger) fuck up to her CV. Labour aren't pushing for a 2nd ref, they are just calling for the general election they know they won't get. Even in the multiple fuck ups of brexit, I can't see a scenario where one of the major parties makes active moves towards abandoning breixt or calling for a 2nd ref. And in the absence of that, brexit will go through.

 

[Pickman's model]

The question Leave or Remain has already been asked. Leave won. A second referendum might reasonably be held on the details of the deal, but to make it into Leave or Remain again two years on is like saying "do you really mean it?" repeatedly to someone who has already expressed their opinion. It is saying to the electorate "we asked, but we didn't really think you'd say that, so try again and this time say what we wanted". I voted Remain, but frankly in those circumstances I'd not only vote Leave, I'd actively campaign for it.

You've admitted "the main motivation of calls for a 2nd ref is to stop brexit". Your final paragraph is merely rationalising that goal.

None of this is to say you, or anyone else, must now support Brexit and desist from campaigning against it.

i think "remain" faces three great difficulties: 1) an inability to realise that people have been closely observing the eu for two years, and it has not always shown its best face; 2) an inability to present the eu as a flawed but still valuable body; 3) an inability to consider that having won one referendum a second referendum might also result in a leave vote. the most prominent remain arguments do not engage with these points at all. it is for them a manichean dichotomy, the light of remain versus the dark of brexit. the only people attracted by this voted remain in the first place. the more yesteryears' politicians call for a second referendum, the more they harm the cause they believe they are promoting. i think there is a very reasonable case to be made for a second referendum, but i don't believe the people demanding a second referendum have the nous or the wit to make it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

thing is nobody anywhere is going to want the any deal that may comes up with. As well as the brexiteers opposing it on the basis that its even worse then staying in the EU (cos it will mean the Uk is tied to their regs and paying into the pot whilst not having any decision making power) there is significant pressure from many different areas of power and influence to scrap brexit altogether and a 2nd ref as a result of mays faliure to get a deal through will be the way to do it.
Mays only chance of getting a deal through is by plp members rebelling agasint the whip - but labour brexiteers who would do that are few in number and labour leavers will rather see a 2nd ref.
I dont see any great popular or political support for Mays final deal outside of tory loyalists - its only purpose would be to keep her in power.
Those opposing it can feasibly argue that Mays deal is shit and is not what people voted for. MAy then takes the political hit for fucking up brexit.
What people voted for was a brexit that left the uk in a better position than in the EU. Thats was never ever going to happen no matter who was in charge. The uk might have got a less shit deal if the combined talents of may, daives and johnson had not been doing the negotiating - but it would still have been shit.

Lets remind ourselves again what people were promised-

That interview is an early example of a later theme: millions voting leave will be doing so to control migration, and they could not be ignored, but by implication the millions voting remain or leave who do not want those migration controls should be ignored. 'what a majority of the 52% want' is what must happen is a recurring theme. Even dlr's objection to having 'remain' on the ballot paper in a 2nd ref is an extension of that. It's a funny kind of democracy.

 

[Pickman's model]

That interview is an early example of a later theme: millions voting leave will be doing so to control migration, and they could not be ignored, but the millions voting remain or leave who do not want those migration controls should be ignored. 'what a majority of the 52% want' is what must happen is a recurring theme. Even dlr's objection to having 'leave' on the ballot paper in a 2nd ref is an extension of that. It's a funny kind of democracy.

it is at best a constitutional monarchy with no constitution, and with barely a fig-leaf of democracy.

 

[Wilf]

I agree with all of that in terms of it being a shit deal, worst possible position and the rest. But I'm coming at it with regard to how does a 2nd ref actually come about. earlier in the thread I've argued the only way for that to come about is if somebody sees it in their interest to push it through (leadership group or a party). May certainly isn't going to go for a 2nd ref, even though she never wanted brexit. Her only rationale now, esp. after fucking up the 2017 election, is to deliver brexit. Nothing else, doesn't matter how bad it is, she just doesn't want to add another (and bigger) fuck up to her CV. Labour aren't pushing for a 2nd ref, they are just calling for the general election they know they won't get. Even in the multiple fuck ups of brexit, I can't see a scenario where one of the major parties makes active moves towards abandoning breixt or calling for a 2nd ref. And in the absence of that, brexit will go through.

A shorter way of saying all that is that I've not seen any major players or party factions putting in place the kind of moves that would lead to a second ref. Has anyone else?

 

[ska invita]

because nobody - bar a handful of brexit headbangers who want to jump off a cliff edge - want either of those options.

According to this public poll
Brexit: Hard or Soft - Poll
25 urbanites want a hard or crash out Brexit.

They may have changed their minds since then

 

[Kaka Tim]

I agree with all of that in terms of it being a shit deal, worst possible position and the rest. But I'm coming at it with regard to how does a 2nd ref actually come about. earlier in the thread I've argued the only way for that to come about is if somebody sees it in their interest to push it through (leadership group or a party). May certainly isn't going to go for a 2nd ref, even though she never wanted brexit. Her only rationale now, esp. after fucking up the 2017 election, is to deliver brexit. Nothing else, doesn't matter how bad it is, she just doesn't want to add another (and bigger) fuck up to her CV. Labour aren't pushing for a 2nd ref, they are just calling for the general election they know they won't get. Even in the multiple fuck ups of brexit, I can't see a scenario where one of the major parties makes active moves towards abandoning breixt or calling for a 2nd ref. And in the absence of that, brexit will go through.

i guess something like

May fails to get a deal through.
This means Uk will crash out with no deal on march 29th 2019 unless A50 is revoked, suspended whatever.
EU27 says ok - we will pause A50 -cos uk crashing out is quite shit for us too - but you need to either have a general election or 2nd ref to resolve this.
House of commons then has to choose between 2nd ref or general election. Or take uk off a cliff.

Gets messy from here on - not sure how the mechanism for a 2nf ref or GE will play out - but there is no way parliament will allow the uk to crash out. 2nd ref or ge will be very damaging for the tories - but crashing the uk out with no deal would destroy them. It will not be allowed to happen.

ETA - its all pretty unprecedented/uncharted waters if/when may fails to get a deal through. I wouldn't even be surprised if we see a "national unity" government that takes over to negotiate suspension of A50 and delivery of 2nd ref and/or GE (as crashing out could be termed as a national emergency on a par with a war or massive disaster)
Tories will almost certainly have to choose a new leader before a GE as well.

 

[mauvais]

The question Leave or Remain has already been asked. Leave won. A second referendum might reasonably be held on the details of the deal, but to make it into Leave or Remain again two years on is like saying "do you really mean it?" repeatedly to someone who has already expressed their opinion. It is saying to the electorate "we asked, but we didn't really think you'd say that, so try again and this time say what we wanted". I voted Remain, but frankly in those circumstances I'd not only vote Leave, I'd actively campaign for it.

You've admitted "the main motivation of calls for a 2nd ref is to stop brexit". Your final paragraph is merely rationalising that goal.

None of this is to say you, or anyone else, must now support Brexit and desist from campaigning against it.

At what point would you feel that IndyRef2 would be a legitimate exercise? Is it merely a question of time, or interim change to the important factors (e.g. a particular version of Brexit having played out)?

 

[DotCommunist]

A shorter way of saying all that is that I've not seen any major players or party factions putting in place the kind of moves that would lead to a second ref. Has anyone else?

loads of frantic astroturfing best for britain, the gina miller axis of business and libdemmery etc.

but its not very good at it

 

[SpackleFrog]

there is a sizeable chunk of people who voted for Brexit who are older and own their own homes or are in secure-tenancy housing. They're either nearly or already retired, and in the short term they're unlikely to see much of an effect from any kind of brexit. In the medium term, they would be hit by rising inflation but not much else. In the long term, they're dead. It is notable that there appears to be a strong pattern in the vote that people with less at stake tended to vote leave, and they're still the people less likely to be bothered by negative consequences

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't think that's particularly coherent. So how do I vote, when I think brexit is a stupid idea and whatever deal there is I will object to parts of it while I can see that 'no deal' would probably be even worse?

See how polarising this shit is, how destructive it is? You'd actively campaign for leave in a second ref in my scenario. I'd be tempted to campaign for 'no deal' in yours. If the 'deal' involved new border controls, I probably would do so. I'm not voting for that. There certainly wouldn't be anything on the ballot paper that I would think is remotely the right thing to do. My answer, as is so often the case in votes, would be 'neither of the above, thankyou', so I would effectively be disenfranchised.

I don’t see any incoherence in my position. You are, by your own admission, conflating process and outcome. This is something that Remainers are doing all over the shop. Because they want to Remain in the EU they are willing to overlook process.

I don’t see myself as a Remainer or a Leaver. For me, the whole referendum campaign was a surreal experience. I felt entirely disconnected from two positions, neither of which I cared for. This idea that there are two polar camps that every belongs to one of other of is wrong in my experience. I’m not. My partner is not. Many of my friends are not. We’re in the “oh, shut up and get on with it” camp. The “oh, is this still going on?” camp.

But look at this dispassionately. If you ask someone to take a decision, then you abide by their decision even if you think it the wrong one. To do otherwise is to admit that all they were doing was exercising the illusion of determination.

It is that admission that many people will react against. That I will react against. I’m like that. If people push me to give the answer they want, re-asking, re-asking, I’ll give them the other answer. Even if my initial answer is “I’m not bothered”. (I was going to give you real life examples of when I’ve done this, but I’ll keep it brief).

The choice to leave the EU has been taken. The choice now facing us is the manner of that leaving. We either leave that to the government, or we let them take it so far and then return to us to say “OK, we have negotiated a deal. Do you approve it or not?” In effect, the deal or no deal. If such a referendum were to take place, I probably wouldn’t vote. (Although I’d need to see the deal before deciding).

You may think it’s a choice between two bad scenarios. If you are unable to determine which is the better of two bad options, then you are in the position I am in at almost every general election. Is there a tactical reason I should vote a particular way? If not, then I abstain.

No matter how much I’d like it, the option of “full communism now” is not on the ballot paper. The option for you of “Remain, actually” is not on the ballot paper. Sorry, but it isn’t. I know it doesn’t stop you supporting it, but there you go. Life’s tough.

 

[danny la rouge]

i think "remain" faces three great difficulties: 1) an inability to realise that people have been closely observing the eu for two years, and it has not always shown its best face; 2) an inability to present the eu as a flawed but still valuable body; 3) an inability to consider that having won one referendum a second referendum might also result in a leave vote. the most prominent remain arguments do not engage with these points at all. it is for them a manichean dichotomy, the light of remain versus the dark of brexit. the only people attracted by this voted remain in the first place. the more yesteryears' politicians call for a second referendum, the more they harm the cause they believe they are promoting. i think there is a very reasonable case to be made for a second referendum, but i don't believe the people demanding a second referendum have the nous or the wit to make it.

I broadly agree with this.

 

[danny la rouge]

At what point would you feel that IndyRef2 would be a legitimate exercise? Is it merely a question of time, or interim change to the important factors (e.g. a particular version of Brexit having played out)?

I’ve given my opinion on this several times, as I’m sure you know. It’s probably why you’re asking.

I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for a second independence referendum on the grounds that there have been material changes to circumstances. The Union people agreed to stay in will shortly no longer be in existence. Those of us who lived through the independence referendum know that a huge plank of the Better Together campaign was “EU membership is only guaranteed with a No vote”. This was repeated time and again. David Cameron. Ruth Davidson. Gordon Brown. Jim Murphy. All can be found repeating this.

The leaflets they put out repeatedly said “The UK is one of the most influential members of the European Union. This means that we don’t just sit at the top table, we help make the decisions that affect so many parts of our life here in Scotland.” Voting No delivers that. (This is a direct quote from Better Together material, by the way).

It is reasonable to assume that this formed part of the expectation of No voters.


However, I think more than that is required. People were misled during the campaign. What’s new? What is required is that a majority thinks that given these new circumstances another referendum is required. That people say, “hold on, we were asked about being Better Together in the EU” . Not necessarily that a majority want to vote Yes to independence this time, but that a majority think another vote is required because of the changed circumstances.

(Of course, tactically, I don’t think the ScotGov should call it until polling is consistently delivering pro Yes majorities, but that’s a separate matter).

 

[Chz]

Can you provide evidence for this claim?

There's plenty of evidence that Leave voting corresponded very strongly with age (much moreso than education or ethnicity, which were all over the place), but I haven't seen any record of the economic status of the older voters. It could very well be the case that the older Leave vote owns no property and relies heavily on the winter fuel allowance. Or not. I haven't seen any statistics that show it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I’ve given my opinion on this several times, as I’m sure you know. It’s probably why you’re asking.

I think there’s a reasonable case to be made for a second independence referendum on the grounds that there have been material changes to circumstances. The Union people agreed to stay in will shortly no longer be in existence. Those of us who lived through the independence referendum know that a huge plank of the Better Together campaign was “EU membership is only guaranteed with a No vote”. This was repeated time and again. David Cameron. Ruth Davidson. Gordon Brown. Jim Murphy. All can be found repeating this.

The leaflets they put out repeatedly said “The UK is one of the most influential members of the European Union. This means that we don’t just sit at the top table, we help make the decisions that affect so many parts of our life here in Scotland.” Voting No delivers that. (This is a direct quote from Better Together material, by the way).

It is reasonable to assume that this formed part of the expectation of No voters.


However, I think more than that is required. People were misled during the campaign. What’s new? What is required is that a majority thinks that given these new circumstances another referendum is required. That people say, “hold on, we were asked about being Better Together in the EU” . Not necessarily that a majority want to vote Yes to independence this time, but that a majority think another vote is required because of the changed circumstances.

(Of course, tactically, I don’t think the ScotGov should call it until polling is consistently delivering pro Yes majorities, but that’s a separate matter).

Surely exactly the same argument can be made regarding campaigning for brexit. It's not even those who campaigned for brexit who are now doing brexit, largely, and a bunch of 'these are the things that brexit will bring' promises are very clearly now not going to happen.

tbh I think you're in danger of doing exactly what you think I'm doing - rationalising your position, which in this case is 'don't really care about brexit but want Scottish independence'.

 

[danny la rouge]

Surely exactly the same argument can be made regarding campaigning for brexit.

Go on then, make it.