Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[littlebabyjesus]

There is no precedent for the denial of a popular vote which would be the case. To predict the outcome - as has been attempted on here - is impossible.

It wasn't legally binding, and if there is another vote, that makes the first one defunct. People might be pissed off if there's another vote, but they can hardly say it's a denial of democracy, especially given all the flaws of the original vote - lack of any coherent plan or set of people who would be mandated to carry out any plan. I don't see any unity or coherence to any revolt against a second referendum if that is what happens. Plus, unless they never go out anywhere or meet anyone, any brexit enthusiast will know people who sharply disagree with them, in many cases their own children. Kids won't be rioting over the failure of brexit, not when 75% of those who could be bothered to vote voted against it.

It would help if the political classes were to collectively admit to the failures of the original process. Everyone who voted in favour of the original referendum should do some grovelling before asking for another one.

 

[Wilf]

There is no precedent for the denial of a popular vote which would be the case. To predict the outcome - as has been attempted on here - is impossible.

I agree, in terms of predicting it (which is why I went with 'feeling'). Could be, might not be. Thing is, I'd love to see some resistance and anger, ideally about things that matter directly. Cameron only accidentally made the EU into a stick with which to beat the establishment. What I'm (genuinely) unsure of is whether any denial of brexit is still going to be coupled to popular anger. The other thing, of course, is that there's every likelihood we will leave the EU. It certainly won't end up like the dreams of jacob rees mogg, but it will be a brexit. I can't see there being too much by way of street protests around the differences between brexit and 'brexit in name only'. Ultimately, it will add to popular resentment, but active anger - well, as you say, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[agricola]

Also have we had this yet?


That legal advice must be damning, though even that doesn't even begin to excuse the idiocy in trying to set a precedent whereby the Government can just tell the Commons to go swivel for information that the Commons has demanded.

 

[brogdale]

Also have we had this yet?


That legal advice must be damning, though even that doesn't even begin to excuse the idiocy in trying to set a precedent whereby the Government can just tell the Commons to go swivel for information that the Commons has demanded.

Consistent with oft repeated Goebbels line favoured by tory backbench nonentities; "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Also have we had this yet?


That legal advice must be damning, though even that doesn't even begin to excuse the idiocy in trying to set a precedent whereby the Government can just tell the Commons to go swivel for information that the Commons has demanded.

They could just do what Blair did, and lie.

 

[kabbes]

For all the talk of foreign involvement in the Brexit vote itself, it seems often missed that there will be tons of astro turf based online campaigning around this still going on. I'm pretty convinced that a number of the commenters on Conservative Home Brexit articles are astro-turfers, and it's been interesting to see 'new members' pop on here to post threads about Brexit too.

My guess is that things like the failed Rees-Mogg leadership challenge actually pull back the curtain on what is actually just a small but vociferous minority that has cash to spend on seeming bigger than they are, and is still invested in that mission.

You do realise that this “vociferous minority” actually won the referendum, right?

 

[kabbes]

Those saying that they can’t see that there will be pushback from a cancelled Brexit are taking an INCREDIBLY short-term view of the glorious history of rioting in this country. It was basically a national pastime from the 13th century (at least) up until, well, 2011 (at least). If the public feel they aren’t being heard, they riot.

ETA: And I’m not saying that like it’s a bad thing either. Sometimes a riot is the only way to get things done.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Those saying that they can’t see that there will be pushback from a cancelled Brexit are taking an INCREDIBLY short-term view of the glorious history of rioting in this country. It was basically a national pastime from the 13th century (at least) up until, well, 2011 (at least). If the public feel they aren’t being heard, they riot.

ETA: And I’m not saying that like it’s a bad thing either. Sometimes a riot is the only way to get things done.

Rioting is generally a young person's activity.

 

[kabbes]

Rioting is generally a young person's activity.

There are no young people who might be pissed off with the establishment and see this as the final straw?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are no young people who might be pissed off with the establishment and see this as the final straw?

Approximately one person of voting age under 25 in every ten voted for Brexit.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Remainers willing to ignore the biggest democratic exercise in living memory in order to save capitalism are playing with fire.

Leaving was a shit decision then and it's even worse now knowing the deal May came back with. Capitalism isn't in danger either way.

 

[Kaka Tim]

no, what's paralysed westminster is the May administration's valiant fight to prevent a parliamentary vote on a.50, the May administration's bold decision to hold a general election when none was necessary, the may administration's inability to decide before launching a.50 what it actually wanted, the may administration's waste of time with the Davis 'negotiations' while behind the brexit secretary's back may was preparing something quite different.

May made a bad situation worse - but whoever was in charge - certainly if was a tory - we'd have ended up this position one way or another - it was inevitable from the moment the referendum went to leave (see the OP on this thread)

 

[Pickman's model]

May made a bad situation worse - but whoever was in charge - certainly if was a tory - we'd have ended up this position one way or another - it was inevitable from the moment the referendum went to leave (see the OP on this thread)

As I've said on one of these threads this was by no means inevitable, in addition to which you're shuffling your position somewhat

There has been little westminster ie parliament paralysis but a lot of government fuckwittery. The government's decision not to involve the other parliamentary parties and to dismiss all the obvious options led us here

 

[Kaka Tim]

well - tbh - the hypotheticals of what else could have happened are somewhat irrelevant. But May and the tories are going catch most of the shit if/when Brexit gets canned.

 

[Pickman's model]

well - tbh - the hypotheticals of what else could have happened are somewhat irrelevant. But May and the tories are going catch most of the shit if/when Brexit gets canned.

You were lucky with your guesswork in the OP, Urban's answer to nostradamus. Don't let a spot of success go to your head. You say may and the tories will catch the flak. But the great majority of the tories are leave, hard or soft. May be the Labour Party catch most of the shit as they've always been lukewarm on going

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Leaving was a shit decision then and it's even worse now knowing the deal May came back with. Capitalism isn't in danger either way.

Nobody has suggested it is as far as I can see? The debate should be about what provides the best opportunity to move - even if it’s only an inch - away from the death grip of late capitalism. Neither option on the table offers that, and the discussion on the last few pages here has been about what tactics Corbyn and the gang could apply and the inherent dangers of their current liminal position.

Staying would also be a really shit decision would it not given the economic direction of the E.U. which, as we know, cannot be amended by democracy or governments?

 

[Pickman's model]

The debate should be about what provides the best opportunity to move - even if it’s only an inch - away from the death grip of late capitalism. Neither option on the table offers that

if only theresa may had thought of having shuffling away from the dead grip of late capitalism as one of her policy objectives maybe things would be different

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nobody has suggested it is as far as I can see? The debate should be about what provides the best opportunity to move - even if it’s only an inch - away from the dead grip of late capitalism. Neither option on the table offers that hence the discussion on the last few pages about what tactics Corbyn and the gang could apply and the inherent dangers of their current liminal position

I can give an answer to that. Remaining in the EU and getting a reformist government elected with genuinely left policies such as nationalisations and national building programmes gives a better opportunity to move an inch or two away from late capitalism than any version of brexit realistically on the table. A government that might clash with the EU potentially (although the EU is nowhere near as omnipotent or monolithic as some here seem to think it is), but outside the EU, with any version of brexit on the table, such a government would barely be able to move a millimetre.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can give an answer to that. Remaining in the EU and getting a reformist government elected with genuinely left policies such as nationalisations and national building programmes gives a better opportunity to move an inch or two away from late capitalism than any version of brexit realistically on the table. A government that might clash with the EU potentially (although the EU is nowhere near as omnipotent or monolithic as some here seem to think it is), but outside the EU, with any version of brexit on the table, such a government would barely be able to move a millimetre.

Surely metric in the eu and imperial outside it rather than the other way round

 

[Kaka Tim]

You were lucky with your guesswork in the OP, Urban's answer to nostradamus. Don't let a spot of success go to your head. You say may and the tories will catch the flak. But the great majority of the tories are leave, hard or soft. May be the Labour Party catch most of the shit as they've always been lukewarm on going

going by the poll results - a lot of people were lucky (mind you it hasn't not happened yet - as it were). I just could never see the bulk of the british establishment - plus other large areas of the polity - being forced into doing something it absolutely didn't want to do on the back of a 52% majority vote - especially given the obvious difficulties and contradictions.
And the may and tories will get the flack cos they will the government who fucked up brexit. Labour got pretty much the perfect result in the 2017 GE - hamstringing the government and then being able to sit on the sidelines whilst May staggered back and forth getting nowhere.

 

[agricola]

I can give an answer to that. Remaining in the EU and getting a reformist government elected with genuinely left policies such as nationalisations and national building programmes gives a better opportunity to move an inch or two away from late capitalism than any version of brexit realistically on the table. A government that might clash with the EU potentially (although the EU is nowhere near as omnipotent or monolithic as some here seem to think it is), but outside the EU, with any version of brexit on the table, such a government would barely be able to move a millimetre.

The impact on other reformist / leftist movements elsewhere in the EU would be considerable as well, providing a healthy alternative to the current choice of between glib technocracy and national loonism.

 

[Pickman's model]

going by the poll results - a lot of people were lucky (mind you it hasn't not happened yet - as it were). I just could never see the bulk of the british establishment - plus other large areas of the polity - being forced into doing something it absolutely didn't want to do on the back of a 52% majority vote - especially given the obvious difficulties and contradictions.
And the may and tories will get the flack cos they will the government who fucked up brexit. Labour got pretty much the perfect result in the 2017 GE - hamstringing the government and then being able to sit on the sidelines whilst May staggered back and forth getting nowhere.

Let's see how it ends

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The impact on other reformist / leftist movements elsewhere in the EU would be considerable as well, providing a healthy alternative to the current choice of between glib technocracy and national loonism.

Careful now. That sounds like internationalism.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I can give an answer to that. Remaining in the EU and getting a reformist government elected with genuinely left policies such as nationalisations and national building programmes gives a better opportunity to move an inch or two away from late capitalism than any version of brexit realistically on the table. A government that might clash with the EU potentially (although the EU is nowhere near as omnipotent or monolithic as some here seem to think it is), but outside the EU, with any version of brexit on the table, such a government would barely be able to move a millimetre.

I disagree with your first point. The institutions of the E.U. are agreed on the economic approach - and this cannot be changed. A social democratic government in the UK would be blocked by EU rules in many areas, state aid, being one.

I agree on your second point. This is a major error by labour - there was, and maybe still is, a massive opportunity to set out an alternative to Tory Brexit and to have built popular support for it. The lack of ambition and vision has boxed them in totally

 

[redsquirrel]

I know. This is why I'm here trying to second guess what it is. What is it?

My ideal Brexit would be for the workers to seize control of the mean of production and tell the EU to get to fuck. But I suspect what you actually want me to state is whether I want a "hard" or "soft" Brexit (whatever those words even mean), and that's part of the politics I'm criticising. You are limiting the options to those permitted by capital.

There's a fundamental difference between surrender and starting a new fight you aren't going to win....'Wait for ruin' seems like the most likely catalyst for anything to change,

You just said that you believed in the strength of the working class, now you've written it off completely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I disagree with your first point. The institutions of the E.U. are agreed on the economic approach - and this cannot be changed. A social democratic government in the UK would be blocked by EU rules in many areas, state aid, being one.

I agree on your second point. This is a major error by labour - there was, and maybe still is, a massive opportunity to set out an alternative to Tory Brexit and to have built popular support for it. The lack of ambition and vision has boxed them in totally

The institutions of the EU are secondary in power to national governments. That gets lost in a lot of this, and is reflected in the wording of treaties - there are 'national security' get-out clauses for most things.

The direction of travel can be challenged, particularly by a non-euro country. The UK has never challenged anything over this direction because it has been a main driver of it. Butchers was right earlier when he said that the EU was made in Thatcher's image, or words to that effect. When you look at privatisations, for instance, you see that the UK was the first and deepest to have done this in the whole of the EU. No British government has had pushback from the EU because its policies weren't capitalist enough for the EU's institutions. The British version of capitalism at least since 1979 (some would say since 1976) is far more brutal than that of any other EU country. The idea that mild social democratic reforms would be blocked by an all-powerful EU is at the very least questionable. Get those things in a manifesto, get elected on that manifesto, drive the reforms through in the name of your democratic mandate. The EU doesn't have the financial leverage over the UK that it has over eurozone countries. Get treaties renegotiated if necessary - drive through reforms of the EU - and as agricola says, get others to come along with you on that drive. Help those stuck in the eurozone bind to challenge the undemocratic restraints they are under. Build better things across borders.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

The institutions of the EU are secondary in power to national governments. That gets lost in a lot of this, and is reflected in the wording of treaties - there are 'national security' get-out clauses for most things.

The direction of travel can be challenged, particularly by a non-euro country. The UK has never challenged anything over this direction because it has been a main driver of it. Butchers was right earlier when he said that the EU was made in Thatcher's image, or words to that effect. When you look at privatisations, for instance, you see that the UK was the first and deepest to have done this in the whole of the EU. No British government has had pushback from the EU because its policies weren't capitalist enough for the EU's institutions. The British version of capitalism at least since 1979 (some would say since 1976) is far more brutal than that of any other EU country. The idea that mild social democratic reforms would be blocked by an all-powerful EU is at the very least questionable. Get those things in a manifesto, get elected on that manifesto, drive the reforms through in the name of your democratic mandate. The EU doesn't have the financial leverage over the UK that it has over eurozone countries. Get treaties renegotiated if necessary - drive through reforms of the EU - and as agricola says, get others to come along with you on that drive. Help those stuck in the eurozone bind to challenge the undemocratic restraints they are under. Build better things across borders.

You can’t just get a few others to come along with you on yer drive, you need every member state in the house or you’ll be driving nowhere.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Also, who are you? Jeremy Corbyn? It’s difficult enough to get an MP to represent your interests nationally never mind internationally.

 

[mauvais]

My ideal Brexit would be for the workers to seize control of the mean of production and tell the EU to get to fuck. But I suspect what you actually want me to state is whether I want a "hard" or "soft" Brexit (whatever those words even mean), and that's part of the politics I'm criticising. You are limiting the options to those permitted by capital.

I don't want you to state any particular thing, I want your idea of how something good actually comes of it in a form that's more than a pipe dream. An outline for a novel if you like. What very rough process can you imagine actually happening whereby the left is emboldened & empowered by some outcome of Brexit?

 

[Gerry1time]

You do realise that this “vociferous minority” actually won the referendum, right?

No they didn't. They certainly caused the referendum to happen by scaring and splitting the tories (who didn't really get Brexit voters could be Labour voters too), but the reasons for voting leave were bigger and more wide ranging than those pushed by the vociferous minority. Not everyone voting leave was an unfettered free trade idealist, which is largely what's behind the continuing vociferation.