No confidence

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 girlymonkey 16 Jan 2019

Has there ever been a situation in history where the government have voted themselves out in a confidence vote? I'm presuming even this shambolic rabble won't do that! Just intrigued as to whether it has ever happened though 

6
In reply to girlymonkey:

I'm thinking this would be a new fragrance line .

"No confidence"  

Guaranteed to keep you moist during those long hours spent shouting and jeering across rooms.  

2
In reply to girlymonkey:

no idea,

But it seems Corbyns strategy is to keep tabling them until it does happen.

It's a funny strategy and good for brexiteers... she might propose a customs union, something that Labour might agree to support, and Brussels would probably agree an extension of article 50 in order to negotiate.

But if Labour plans to keep tabling no-confidence motions, the DUP will be able to threaten to bring down the government should she propose anything of the sort.

 

2
 wintertree 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> But it seems Corbyns strategy

This quote about the CIA would also apply to the words “Corbyn’s Strategy” - https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0e21dbc8-d97c-4f6c-ad4a-9a50a8170e43

1
 Lornajkelly 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

I'm very much hoping that JRM et al. see it as an opportunity to force her resignation, so that they can hold a leadership election and be the ones to contest the GE against Corbyn.  With Labour's party line (not necessarily Corbyn's but to my understanding they don't have to be the same) being to avoid a no-deal brexit it looks like that will mean either an extension of A50 or a full revoke of brexit.  They (JRM et al.) can appeal to leave voters with the whole "enemy of the people" line and fight the GE on that.  

On the other hand, they may just not want to risk losing power and cowardice will win out.  Hopefully the former because it's the only chance we'll get at a Labour government any time soon.

3
 ClimberEd 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Lornajkelly:

I love that sort of bullshit reasoning. Similar to when we hear calls for someone to 'do the right thing' when it is blatantly not in their own interest.

How do you reconcile 'not wishing to lose power' with 'cowardice'. It's not cowardice to take actions that keeps your party in government.

Unless of course you don't want them to be, in which case you will twist it however you wish.

1
 bpmclimb 16 Jan 2019
In reply to ClimberEd:

>  It's not cowardice to take actions that keeps your party in government.

Why not? It could be, surely - it's not hard to think of examples of decisions which might help to keep a party in power, but which are very bad in other ways.

 

 

2
 ClimberEd 16 Jan 2019
In reply to bpmclimb:

Because if you aren't in power then it does what it says on the tin - you then don't have any power.

3
 Lornajkelly 16 Jan 2019
In reply to ClimberEd:

That's a fair point, but it seems that a few of the brexiteer MPs would quite like to be prime minister themselves.

And I prefer "unrealistically optimistic" to "bullshit" personally haha.

Post edited at 10:27
1
 Philip 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Catch 22.

A GE election without a referendum means they will campaign to implement a Brexit.

A referendum without a GE means we only get a choice of hard/May/stay. Fine if you want to stay or hard exit, but doesn't allow for a result renegotiated closer exit (Corbyn like for arguments sake).

There are 2 or 3 questions that can't be answered with 1 binary choice.

The country needs to decide, leave or stay, if leave then hard or soft, and do you want Left or Right to be in government.

1
 Rob Parsons 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> But it seems Corbyns strategy is to keep tabling them until it does happen.

 

Why do you say that?

Since there has never been a worse defeat for a Government, certainly one needed to be tabled now, even though it seems to have no chance of being passed.

1
 SDM 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> But if Labour plans to keep tabling no-confidence motions, the DUP will be able to threaten to bring down the government should she propose anything of the sort.

The Conservatives and the DUP are not going to support a vote of no confidence now or in the future. Turkeys won't vote for Christmas.

Conservatives will want to keep out a Labour government far more than they will want to uphold their views on brexit (especially as Corbyn's position on brexit doesn't actually differ from May's all the that much. Certainly not by enough to sway those who favour a hard brexit or remain).

The DUP are not going to do anything to threaten the money they secured for the confidence and supply arrangement. They oppose Labour's position on nearly all issues and the Conservatives are in such a precarious position that the DUP don't even need to vote with the government on the biggest issue for a generation and still there is not a murmur of any Tory discontent over their opposition to it. 

The DUP won't change their position and the Conservatives know it.

 

 john arran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Philip:

> The country needs to decide, leave or stay, if leave then hard or soft, and do you want Left or Right to be in government.

Have I woken up in 2016?

1
 Jon Read 16 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

It was all a bad dream, John. Everything is fine

Rigid Raider 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Lornajkelly:

Why on Earth would we want that shower of muppets in Government? 

1
 bpmclimb 16 Jan 2019
In reply to ClimberEd:

> Because if you aren't in power then it does what it says on the tin - you then don't have any power.

So? Maybe seeing the bigger picture and making the right decision is more important than political survival.

1
 ClimberEd 16 Jan 2019
In reply to bpmclimb:

> So? Maybe seeing the bigger picture and making the right decision is more important than political survival.

and back to the real world.......

 

 

1
 Blue Straggler 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Has there ever been a situation in history where the government have voted themselves out in a confidence vote? I'm presuming even this shambolic rabble won't do that! Just intrigued as to whether it has ever happened though 

I think something similar happened in Belgium about 4 years ago, would need to check details though, and I am a bit busy right now. Look it up if you have time before I do

2
 birdie num num 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

It's all very well Jeremy Corbyn jutting his chin out and tabling a motion of no confidence in the government from his position on the fence, a gesture which will prove to be a complete waste of time and a reflection on how ineffective he would be if ever (shudder) he was in the hot seat. 

The motion of no confidence should be a motion against parliament, not the government. Only a dictator could sort this mess out.

10
 Timmd 16 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num: I feel like we're either shuffling towards a second referendum, or crashing out, because cancelling Brexit would be too much of a direct contradiction to the referendum result. 

 

cb294 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

This famously happened in Germany in 1982. Helmut Kohl first became chancellor by a so called "constructive" vote of no confidence (i.e. parliament cannot simply get rid of the old government, but has to vote for an alternative that then, automatically, commands a majority) after the liberals switched coalition allegiance from the Social Democrats to the Conservatives mid term.

He then asked for another vote of confidence which he deliberately lost, in order to trigger an early election.

This was subsequently found to be an abuse of process by the constitutional court.

CB

 lbachir2000 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Lornajkelly:

> I'm very much hoping that JRM et al. see it as an opportunity to force her resignation, so that they can hold a leadership election and be the ones to contest the GE against Corbyn.  With Labour's party line (not necessarily Corbyn's but to my understanding they don't have to be the same) being to avoid a no-deal brexit it looks like that will mean either an extension of A50 or a full revoke of brexit.  They (JRM et al.) can appeal to leave voters with the whole "enemy of the people" line and fight the GE on that.  

> On the other hand, they may just not want to risk losing power and cowardice will win out.  Hopefully the former because it's the only chance we'll get at a Labour government any time soon.

Last year we all watched wonrek from this site (represented by a dot) negotiate the route in brass monkey weather and bloody riveting it was too.

 Tringa 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

We are more two and half years from the referendum and the 29th March is only weeks away but only now does the Government decide talking to other parties about Brexit might be a good idea.

Dave

3
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Has there ever been a situation in history where the government have voted themselves out in a confidence vote? I'm presuming even this shambolic rabble won't do that! Just intrigued as to whether it has ever happened though 

I'd say the Tories had more chance of winning a general election against Corbyn with an increased majority than getting Brexit through a second referendum.   Labour can't win a GE with Corbyn as leader and a policy of going through with Brexit.

The problem with the GE strategy from Theresa May's point of view is she promised not to be leader in the next one.

A GE where neither party with a chance of winning represented the > 50% of voters who now wish to Remain would be a complete travesty and could lead to fractures within the parties.

Post edited at 14:32
1
 jkarran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Lornajkelly:

> That's a fair point, but it seems that a few of the brexiteer MPs would quite like to be prime minister themselves.

> And I prefer "unrealistically optimistic" to "bullshit" personally haha.

In ordinary times a squeaky victory as we're likely to see for the government would be enough to see the PM squeezed out by cabinet rivals but we don't live in ordinary times. I'd be surprised if there is a single blue vote for no confidence in the government whatever internal battles the various tory factions have going or planned.

Hopefully this is just a symbolic step that needs to be taken once before Labour is finally forced to make a stand for something. A general election right now is needed like a hole in the head and it resolves nothing in a meaningful since because it conflates a number of issues, some of which clearly cut across party boundaries while seeking to answer one all consuming question. We might as well have a lucky dip rigged to see the LibDems take a hundred seats and the SNP re-take most of Scotland.

jk

Post edited at 15:01
 jkarran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Have I woken up in 2016?

Funny isn't it, it feels like we are very much back where we should have been just before triggering A50 with the PM making (hollow) noises about cross-bench cooperation and listening. Except now there is a bloody great sword hanging over us and 2 years of poisoned water under the bridge.

jk

1
 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

These NC motions are a joke: we know very well they cannot win it, not now nor later, there is just no way.

This is just posturing to pretend it won't be their fault when we end up with no-deal.

 

 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> In ordinary times a squeaky victory as we're likely to see for the government would be enough to see the PM squeezed out by cabinet rivals but we don't live in ordinary times. I'd be surprised if there is a single blue vote for no confidence in the government whatever internal battles the various tory factions have going or planned.

> Hopefully this is just a symbolic step that needs to be taken once before Labour is finally forced to make a stand for something.

That's the thing, they don't want to stand for anything, it's much easier for them to just block everything so that the gov ends up with no deal, to then blame them for it

1
 birdie num num 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I'm surprised anyone in parliament is advocating a second referendum.... we've already opened that Pandora's box and discovered the uncomfortable contents. The outcome will be just as chaotic, if not more so after referendum number two....even if it went then other way. What then? ...best of three?

4
 john arran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

I normally agree with a lot of your posts but I'm puzzled at your apparent conviction that a People's Vote will never happen. The rEU have already indicated that they'd be prepared to extend A50 to accommodate a vote, and indeed Dominic Grieve has now started the ball rolling by tabling the first such motion in parliament.

Admittedly, May cannot be seen to be supporting such a vote and Corbyn would hate there to be one, but by all accounts there is a majority opinion in the commons - and certainly in Labour Party and in the country - for a vote. So I certainly don't see it as in any way out of the question that, once the momentum builds, increasing numbers of MPs will gladly jump aboard what they will perceive as a winning and increasingly popular strategy.

5
 john arran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

The flaw in your logic, of course, is that the vote in 2016 was based on illegal practices and impossible outcomes.

10
 jkarran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> These NC motions are a joke: we know very well they cannot win it, not now nor later, there is just no way. This is just posturing to pretend it won't be their fault when we end up with no-deal.

An optimist would point to the opportunity it provides Labour to get out of its rut, to start listening to its members and promoting both their vision for brexit and a referendum to unshackle parliament. Optimism isn't my natural state but these two votes have been the excuse for inaction on both sides of the house. Of course we may yet get as we're already seeing from May more deluded time wasting and excuses in response to these losses. That wouldn't surprise anyone.

jk

Post edited at 17:33
 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> I normally agree with a lot of your posts but I'm puzzled at your apparent conviction that a People's Vote will never happen. The rEU have already indicated that they'd be prepared to extend A50 to accommodate a vote, and indeed Dominic Grieve has now started the ball rolling by tabling the first such motion in parliament.

This is just wishful thinking. It's pretty crystal clear that there is no majority for a second ref amongst MPs, even if the gov was to back one (they won't)

Grieve's motion are just useless.

> Admittedly, May cannot be seen to be supporting such a vote and Corbyn would hate there to be one, but by all accounts there is a majority opinion in the commons - and certainly in Labour Party and in the country - for a vote.

Where do you see a majority for a vote?

> So I certainly don't see it as in any way out of the question that, once the momentum builds, increasing numbers of MPs will gladly jump aboard what they will perceive as a winning and increasingly popular strategy.

Problem is any such second vote would not happen without violence breaking out in the streets. I see many brexiteers becoming more and more radicalised, and expressing more and more hate, against the "establishment", Eu migrants, the EU, etc etc . Foreign nationals in particular would be at risk.

It also cannot happen without splitting the Conservative party in half, which is probably the main reason it won't happen: why would any Tory push the self destruct button and lock themselves out of power for the next 20 years ? Sense of duty ? Please....

Post edited at 17:41
1
 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> An optimist would point to the opportunity it provides Labour to get out of its rut, to start listening to its members and promoting both their vision for brexit and a referendum to unshackle parliament. Optimism isn't my natural state but these two votes have been the excuse for inaction on both sides of the house. Of course we may yet get as we're already seeing from May more deluded time wasting and excuses in response to these losses. That wouldn't surprise anyone.

Labour to get out of its rut ? They had two years and a half ! That's not optimism mate, it's denial.

There is an Interesting cognitive dissonance between English/UK media/commentators & EU27: both agree May's deal less likely & remain more likely. But EU27 commentators (incl. myself) think chance of no deal increased much more vs UK ones who almost rule it out.

 

 jkarran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Labour to get out of its rut ? They had two years and a half ! That's not optimism mate, it's denial.

We'll see. Pressure from within Labour's voter base and the grassroots party is growing. They've been hiding behind the conference decision to pursue 'a general election then...' policy for months now, once that is knocked flat they face the choice to stand for something or start haemorrhaging support. I'm sure their MPs are getting that message loud and clear.

> There is an Interesting cognitive dissonance between English/UK media/commentators & EU27: both agree May's deal less likely & remain more likely. But EU27 commentators (incl. myself) think chance of no deal increased much more vs UK ones who almost rule it out.

Personally I still think all three options (May deal, no deal, no brexit) are still in with a shout, I'm not sure the vote has much changed the probabilities of any of them, we clearly now need new information (wherever that comes from) so parliament can move forward and while the May government holds together no-deal has become no more likely. That does change as the A50 clock ticks down though.

edit: you're right, people have become radicalised and it could get seriously out of hand but some amount of brexiter violence looks increasingly likely whether it's because brexit isn't delivered (only happens if 'the will of the people' has changed) or because brexit doesn't deliver (it can't because it's horseshit). Is it better and easier to appease them, knowingly damage the economy then face their rage as their lives get worse or just face their rage down as a functioning state? That ignores the morality of appeasing those minorities who seek to steer our political processes with threats of violence, what happened to not negotiating with terrorists as a principal.

jk

Post edited at 18:31
1
 pec 16 Jan 2019
In reply to bpmclimb:

> So? Maybe seeing the bigger picture and making the right decision is more important than political survival.


Andy Burnham who left parliament to become mayor of Manchester, largely because he couldn't serve under a Corbyn leadership after being beaten by him in the leadership contest was asked about whether he could still support Labour (or words to that effect).

His answer was that he thought the country would always be better off under a Labour government than a Cobservative one, presumably therefore even under a leader he was unwilling to serve.

That attitude is precisely why in the real world, MPs will never vote against themselves in a vote of no confidence.

 Rob Exile Ward 16 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I'm wrestling with that as well. It feels like we are being dictated to by a tiny minority of Brexiteers - like Bolsheviks, or Nazis. But they have the media, and the big guns. Rees Mogg vs Corbyn? Abbott vs Farage? Johnson vs Cable?

1
Removed User 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

To answer your question, no I don't think any government with a majority has lost a vote of no confidence. It would take an awful lot for the DUP to vote against this government and in doing so almost certainly put themselves out of power.

Regarding a Peoples Vote. I reckon the probability of a PV is 65% and the chance of Remain winning a second referendum maybe 80%. That means the probability of the UK staying in the EU is about 50%.

1
 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to pec:

> Andy Burnham who left parliament to become mayor of Manchester, largely because he couldn't serve under a Corbyn leadership after being beaten by him in the leadership contest was asked about whether he could still support Labour (or words to that effect).

> His answer was that he thought the country would always be better off under a Labour government than a Cobservative one, presumably therefore even under a leader he was unwilling to serve.

> That attitude is precisely why in the real world, MPs will never vote against themselves in a vote of no confidence.

Exactly. It is fundamental to the power dynamic of the FPTP system: it selects specifically for those who will put party before country. 

 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Simple point is: there is at best a 100 mps max in favour of a 2nd referendum.

It's not going to happen anytime soon.

The best thing you could wish for is some kind of cross party agreement for an extension and an EEA type agreement.

I still think no deal is more likely at this point.

Post edited at 19:42
 pec 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Exactly. It is fundamental to the power dynamic of the FPTP system: it selects specifically for those who will put party before country. 


Blimey, its not often we agree on something

 HansStuttgart 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

 

> Simple point is: there is at best a 100 mps max in favour of a 2nd referendum.

> It's not going to happen anytime soon.

> The best thing you could wish for is some kind of cross party agreement for an extension and an EEA type agreement.

> I still think no deal is more likely at this point.

It will depend on the LAB leadership now, as they control the largest group that is still unclear. They can suggest a deal on some form of soft brexit, they can demand some form of election/2nd referendum in exchange for support of the government, or they can simply sit and wait for the approaching disaster.

If LAB and CON follow their latest election manifestos, a soft brexit deal should emerge. But maybe both parties judge the price of collaborating with eachother too high.

1
In reply to birdie num num:

> I'm surprised anyone in parliament is advocating a second referendum.... we've already opened that Pandora's box and discovered the uncomfortable contents. The outcome will be just as chaotic, if not more so after referendum number two....even if it went then other way. What then? ...best of three?

Lazy repetition of red herrings 

if a second referendum just repeated the question asked in 2016, you’d have a point 

but there is the opportunity to frame the question in a way that breaks an otherwise unsolvable deadlock. 

We now know what the two available Brexit options look like: May’s deal, or no deal. These aren’t hypothetical, or wish lists full of fairy dust, unicorns and busfulls of cash for the nhs. They are actual, defined possible futures.

so: rank the following options in order of preference:

- May’s deal

- no deal 

- no Brexit 

least popular option eliminated, and a second vote between the remaining two options. 

The winner is, by definition, the will of the People. 

Edit: and after a vote on that question, if the outcome is still one of the two Brexit options, I promise I will STFU and get with the programme...

Post edited at 20:21
2
 RomTheBear 16 Jan 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> It will depend on the LAB leadership now, as they control the largest group that is still unclear. They can suggest a deal on some form of soft brexit, they can demand some form of election/2nd referendum in exchange for support of the government, or they can simply sit and wait for the approaching disaster.

> If LAB and CON follow their latest election manifestos, a soft brexit deal should emerge. But maybe both parties judge the price of collaborating with eachother too high.

Exactly. I expect that they won't.

You can already see that labour is not interested at all in cooperation.

 skog 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Regarding a Peoples Vote. I reckon the probability of a PV is 65% and the chance of Remain winning a second referendum maybe 80%. That means the probability of the UK staying in the EU is about 50%.

Interesting. Why do you think there's a 2/3 chance of a PV? It isn't supported by either of the two largest parties, and there's no sign of it being supported by a majority of MPs. Betfair Exchange odds make it look entirely possible, but are pretty much the reverse of your odds (to happen by 2020, at least): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132100845 (37% yes, 63% no at the time of linking).

It's conceivable that if almost 100% of Labour MPs committed to it, and talked to interested MPs in other parties, they might be able to persuade enough Tories to rebel and vote no confidence in the government to make it happen - but it's almost impossible to imagine Tory MPs helping kick out their own government in the vague hope that Corbyn might have a change of heart and go for this - they'd need certainty, commitment - which doesn't look to be forthcoming.

On overall probablilities, the chance of the UK not leaving would be the chance of a PV * the chance of remain winning, PLUS the chance of the UK remaining in the EU without a PV happening (e.g. parliamentary decision, or a general election with a victory for parties with Remain in their manfestos).

Betting odds only mean so much, but again on Betfair Exchange, Brexit Date "Not before 2022" is trading at 3.5 just now (that's a 71% chance the UK will leave before 2022, or a 2 in 7 chance it won't) https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098

Post edited at 20:40
 bouldery bits 16 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> It's all very well Jeremy Corbyn jutting his chin out and tabling a motion of no confidence in the government from his position on the fence, a gesture which will prove to be a complete waste of time and a reflection on how ineffective he would be if ever (shudder) he was in the hot seat. 

> The motion of no confidence should be a motion against parliament, not the government. Only a dictator could sort this mess out.

I don't like you being serious. 

Removed User 16 Jan 2019
In reply to skog:

> Interesting. Why do you think there's a 2/3 chance of a PV? It isn't supported by either of the two largest parties, and there's no sign of it being supported by a majority of MPs. Betfair Exchange odds make it look entirely possible, but are pretty much the reverse of your odds (to happen by 2020, at least): https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132100845 (37% yes, 63% no at the time of linking).

> It's conceivable that if almost 100% of Labour MPs committed to it, and talked to interested MPs in other parties, they might be able to persuade enough Tories to rebel and vote no confidence in the government to make it happen - but it's almost impossible to imagine Tory MPs helping kick out their own government in the vague hope that Corbyn might have a change of heart and go for this - they'd need certainty, commitment - which doesn't look to be forthcoming.

> On overall probablilities, the chance of the UK not leaving would be the chance of a PV * the chance of remain winning, PLUS the chance of the UK remaining in the EU without a PV happening (e.g. parliamentary decision, or a general election with a victory for parties with Remain in their manfestos).

> Betting odds only mean so much, but again on Betfair Exchange, Brexit Date "Not before 2022" is trading at 3.5 just now (that's a 71% chance the UK will leave before 2022, or a 2 in 7 chance it won't) https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098

Unless the tories accept that they have to go back to the EU and ask for a Customs Union Labour won't support any deal and neither will the SNP or the rest of them. I don't think there is any way that May is going concede on that, have you looked at how she has behaved towards the other parties so far? I don't think she understands what negotiation is about. This morning it wan't even her intention to invite the leaders of the other parties, just to try and pick off lots of MPs in the opposition benches. If she doesn't agree to a customs union then Parliament is in stalemate.

No deal Brexit is not going to get through, Parliament will not allow the UK to leave without a deal. There seem to be various mechanisms open to Parliament to take control from the government.

The only way to break the impasse is to go back to the country and ask the rest of us what we want. I think at that point Labour will demand a People's Vote because they have run out of options and their membership is demanding one. May too will have run out of options so I don't see what alternative she will have other than to call for one. She won't be able to leave with No Deal and she won't be able to get her own deal through Parliament either nor will there be any prospect of her coming up with a variation on her deal that will get through Parliament.

That's why I think it a bit more than 50% likely that it will happen but there's still lots of talk of people looking for alternatives so I'm cautious, thus 65%.

I take your point about staying in the EU by some other mechanism, I'd overlooked that. Let's put the probability of that at 5% for now

Re the betting, I don't go with that. It's the wisdom of the crowd which has been shown to be pretty unreliable.

1
 JoshOvki 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Problem is any such second vote would not happen without violence breaking out in the streets.

Perhaps Remainers should get out in the streets and riot as they have been entirely ignored since the vote.

2
 skog 16 Jan 2019
In reply to Removed User:

I don't think I share all of your optimism, but I do like it!

It certainly seems as if it's still all there to play for, whatever the real likelihoods are.

(Exchange betting odds on markets with good liquidity have been shown to be surprisingly accurate. But they don't tell you what will happen, of course - things with only 28% chance of happening still happen  about two times in seven!)

 Yanis Nayu 16 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

This best of three bollocks is one of those glib comments that superficially sound plausible but don’t survive a second’s thought. We had a vote to which determined that a very slim majority were in favour of leaving the EU. We have had two years of actually seeing what is possible, what the effects are etc and it’s logical and democratic to take this back to the people.  The second vote would be a much, much more informed version of the first, and only a complete idiot wouldn’t want a decision of this magnitude to be made on the most informed basis possible. That’s ignoring all the law-breaking and outright lies on the leave campaigns. 

2
 tev 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

If the DUP had voted differently, the government would have lost by 1 vote. Do the DUP really have confidence in the government? No, they don't; but they have even less confidence in a Corbyn government, so they were a voting on a different motion.

 Yanis Nayu 16 Jan 2019
In reply to tev:

They have less confidence in Corbyn paying them off with our money...

2
 wercat 16 Jan 2019
In reply to JoshOvki:

I'd rather the leading Brexiteers could get out on the streets and rot

but you are rioght

Post edited at 22:14
3
 bpmclimb 16 Jan 2019
In reply to ClimberEd:

> and back to the real world.......

>  

I find that depressingly cynical. People do sometimes make decisions based purely on principle, even when it doesn't serve their own interests. 

 jkarran 16 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Simple point is: there is at best a 100 mps max in favour of a 2nd referendum. It'snot going to happen anytime soon.

That'll change as the options run out.

> The best thing you could wish for is some kind of cross party agreement for an extension and an EEA type agreement.

Can't see it happening, it's pointless and the Norwegians aren't happy with the prospect either. Can't see the EU reopening negotiations unless the British team or mandate changes. They're going to run out of options then need a figleaf for whatever comes next.

Jk

 Greasy Prusiks 16 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Much as I don't like her I don't actually think May is the problem here. 

The real issue is that the people who campaigned to leave aren't responsible for delivering it. They painted a picture of a sunny uplands of all the benefits of EU membership but without EU regulations, membership fees or fishing restrictions. Combine this with telling us that the rest of the world will be queuing up to sign trade deals (haven't seen that happening yet) add in some patriotism and blame the effects of the financial crash on freedom of movement and it's no wonder people voted for it.

The problem is that they made it all up knowing that they would never have to deliver on it. Instead Johnson, Farrage and Rees Mogg etc could sell us brexit (gaining power as they do so) safe in the knowledge that they could just sit on the side lines saying "I wouldn't have done it like that" when it all goes wrong.

At the moment it feels like the public has been sold a con and we're getting dangerously close to buying in on this nonsense. 

3
 Timmd 17 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I'm surprised anyone in parliament is advocating a second referendum.... we've already opened that Pandora's box and discovered the uncomfortable contents. The outcome will be just as chaotic, if not more so after referendum number two....even if it went then other way. What then? ...best of three?

It's hard to argue with that, but with May's deal being voted down, it only leaves no deal and crashing out, or some 'another kind of vote' happening - until something else appears as a way forward.

Post edited at 00:16
 RomTheBear 17 Jan 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> It's hard to argue with that, but with May's deal being voted down, it only leaves no deal and crashing out, or some 'another kind of vote' happening - until something else appears as a way forward.

Crashing out it is then since our politicians are too idiotic to do anything else.

1
 SDM 17 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Problem is any such second vote would not happen without violence breaking out in the streets. I see many brexiteers becoming more and more radicalised, and expressing more and more hate, against the "establishment", Eu migrants, the EU, etc etc . Foreign nationals in particular would be at risk.

Give the fascists what they want to make sure violence doesn't break out on the streets.

I'm trying to think of a worse argument for driving government policy. I'm struggling to come up with one.

 

1
 SDM 17 Jan 2019
In reply to bpmclimb:

> I find that depressingly cynical. People do sometimes make decisions based purely on principle, even when it doesn't serve their own interests. 

People might. Politicians don't. 

 SDM 17 Jan 2019
In reply to skog:

> (Exchange betting odds on markets with good liquidity have been shown to be surprisingly accurate. But they don't tell you what will happen, of course - things with only 28% chance of happening still happen  about two times in seven!)

Leave was at 13 to 1 on the evening of the referendum...

 wercat 17 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Does anyone know how to arrange a vote for self confidence?

 skog 17 Jan 2019
In reply to SDM:

> Leave was at 13 to 1 on the evening of the referendum...

Implying a 1 in 14 chance of happening at that point, yes.

As I said, it indicates likelihood, it isn't a prediction. About 1 in 14 events with such odds happen, that's probably not odds you'd willingly take crossing the road.

Edit - for comparison, it's about the same chance as there is of someone having been born on, say, a Saturday pm. The majority of people you meet won't have been, but you probably wouldn't be very surprised if someone told you they were.

Post edited at 13:09
 Wilberforce 17 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran and RomTheBear:

> > Simple point is: there is at best a 100 mps max in favour of a 2nd referendum. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

> That'll change as the options run out.

There's a theory that Corbyn has been playing towards an outcome of that nature (as a fallback position) carefully from the beginning:

(1) Set an impossibly high bar with their six 'tests'

(2) Use that bar to reject whatever the Tories come up with  

(3) Push for an election via no confidence etc. 

(4) If unsuccessful in gaining or winning an election, reluctantly swing behind a second referendum

The rationale for this is that the Labour referendum vote was split and they cannot afford to alienate their leave voters (thanks to FPTP) are so obligated to at least pay lip service to Brexit. 

Interesting times anyway! 

 RomTheBear 17 Jan 2019
In reply to Wilberforce:

> > > Simple point is: there is at best a 100 mps max in favour of a 2nd referendum. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

> > That'll change as the options run out.

> There's a theory that Corbyn has been playing towards an outcome of that nature (as a fallback position) carefully from the beginning:

> (1) Set an impossibly high bar with their six 'tests'

> (2) Use that bar to reject whatever the Tories come up with  

> (3) Push for an election via no confidence etc. 

> (4) If unsuccessful in gaining or winning an election, reluctantly swing behind a second referendum

Or (4) : Just wreck the process, refuse to negotiate, wait for no-deal, and then blame the tories.

Which is exactly what we are seeing, Labour say they want to prevent no-deal despite the fact that they pulled any amendment that would have prevented that. Again, look at actions, not words. So far their actions have been no different than those of the ERG.

And by refusing to engage in cross party talk they are giving all the power in these "talks" to the ERG. Intentionally.

Post edited at 17:57
 jkarran 17 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

In fairness to Labour I think the amendments were pulled so the defeat would be as brutal and as clearly about May's deal alone as possible giving the strongest position for the futile no confidence motion.

I don't believe Corbyn is playing for a Tory car crash, he's just inept and out of step with his MPs and increasingly, his voters.

Jk

Removed User 17 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

No deal is not going to happen.

There are about 530 out of just over 600 MPs who are opposed to it and mechanisms exist to stop it. If you don't believe me see if you can find the interview with Dominic Grieve from last night where he explains it.

 

 RomTheBear 17 Jan 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> No deal is not going to happen.

Denial and delusion.

> There are about 530 out of just over 600 MPs who are opposed to it and mechanisms exist to stop it. If you don't believe me see if you can find the interview with Dominic Grieve from last night where he explains it.

Wrong: there are 530 MPs who SAY they are opposed to it. But actually very few have done anything to prevent no-deal despite dozens of opportunity over two and a half years.

Moreover: it doesn't matter if there is a majority against no deal, MPs can even vote against no-daal, no deal still happens on 29 March unless you can give the EU a good reason to delay and an alternative plan, or you need to revoke art 50.

Any there isn't any majority for any.

I hope no-deal doesn't happen but for all practical purposes if you have a business or are impacted you should act as if no deal will occur on the 29th of March.

Post edited at 18:45
1
 RomTheBear 17 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> In fairness to Labour I think the amendments were pulled so the defeat would be as brutal and as clearly about May's deal alone as possible giving the strongest position for the futile no confidence motion.

We knew well before that they wouldn't win the confidence motion. As a matter of fact the only time they could have won it, they didn't put it forward.

To be fair T May is as much as dishonest, since she is organising "talks" without any intention to compromise on anything, just to then blame labour for failure.

What we are witnessing is labour and the tories gearing up to blame each other for no-deal. All their actions lead to that.

Post edited at 19:59
 john arran 17 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

May wants another vote but she cantc admit to wanting it as it would split her party terminally. She's playing for time until she can claim a vote has effectively been forced upon her by parliament.

It's her only hope of keeping her job afterwards.

 RomTheBear 17 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> May wants another vote but she cantc admit to wanting it as it would split her party terminally. She's playing for time until she can claim a vote has effectively been forced upon her by parliament.

Really ? Seems to be she is fiercely opposed to it.

The problem you see, is that if the tories call for a referendum, they are shot for the next elections. If labour forces one, they are also shot for the next elections.

If none call for a referendum, and end up in no deal, they both lose a chunk of votes to the Lib Dem, which make no difference to them because fptp.

It follows that it is in the best interest of both parties to not have a second ref.

In fact I'd go as far as saying that May revoking unilaterally art 50 without the consent of parliament is more likely than a second ref.

Post edited at 22:40
 HansStuttgart 17 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

May should call Corbyn out over ruling out no deal by having the commons vote on a deal that includes the withdrawal agreement as it is now, the transition, but not the future relationship guidelines.

This takes all the disagreements over red lines and the necessary trade-offs of the table and creates time to resolves these issues. It removes uncertainties of citizen's rights for UK in EU and vice versa and the Irish border is safe. The only downside is that the ERG won't be happy because no deal is gone (but they will not be happy in any scenario) and the second referendum campaigners won't be happy because brexit will happen (this means they have to shift from their preferred deus ex machina solution to a longer term campaign to rejoin). Both extremes in the commons unhappy, so a good compromise.

Post edited at 22:48
 SDM 18 Jan 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

How can you possibly take no deal off the table?

If nothing is agreed, we leave with no deal by default. To avoid no deal, one of the following has to occur:

1) Parliament has to agree the deal that is on the table that has already been agreed by every other EU country.

2) Parliament agrees to revoke Article 50.

3) Parliament and every EU country agrees to extend Article 50.

If nothing changes, we leave on 29 March. If none of the above are agreed, we leave with no deal.

Given the lack of any sense of agreement among our parliament for anything, the concept of removing no deal from the table is nonsense, regardless of how catastrophic it would be.

1
 jkarran 18 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> We knew well before that they wouldn't win the confidence motion. As a matter of fact the only time they could have won it, they didn't put it forward.

This is nonsense blaming the failure on timing, there has been no moment since their 2017 calamity where even one conservative would vote for another election risking a Corbyn government.

> What we are witnessing is labour and the tories gearing up to blame each other for no-deal. All their actions lead to that.

For now but they're collectively still desperately grasping at unicorns. When reality dawns, when they finally accept they have 3 bad options they they must but can't choose from the arithmetic changes. You believe the response will be paralysis, to shrug and accept no-deal. I think more likely under intense pressure they'd accept May's deal but I doubt that pressure can be brought, more likely they will pause or in extremis stop the exit process and seek the new information they need to legitimise a decision they know will be bad but that they have to make.

No deal happens if the government is paralysed from within by a coup at the key moment meaning they cannot pause the exit or if we the electorate choose it. It's possible but not inevitable.

jk

Post edited at 12:47
 john arran 18 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem you see, is that if the tories call for a referendum, they are shot for the next elections. If labour forces one, they are also shot for the next elections.

I would question both of those assertions. Maybe if either went full-on EU hugging, but there's a huge and probably growing  Remain vote that's currently homeless. What either leader needs to achieve is a second vote that was 'agreed to' rather than 'called for'.

 RomTheBear 19 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> I would question both of those assertions. Maybe if either went full-on EU hugging, but there's a huge and probably growing  Remain vote that's currently homeless. What either leader needs to achieve is a second vote that was 'agreed to' rather than 'called for'.

Here is your problem: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-w...

 john arran 19 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

"almost a third of respondents said they would be less likely to vote Labour" if it were committed to stopping Brexit.

That tells me that a third of the country are  Brexiters. The rest of the article starts quoting figures based on whether respondents are Labour voters, but it is not suggested that this is the case for that headline figure. Given recent polls of 80% or so Brexit support among Labour voters, that would be surprising 

 MargieB 19 Jan 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

What SDM said about the 3 options seems the logic of the process. 

However, could they put in a Parliamentary Motion saying This House agrees not to have World Trade Organisation Rules as a Leave option.

Ok ,it doesn't stop the Leave date on 29 march but sets the agenda to  extend the date if a coalition agreement isn't hammered out.

If  framework of deal not agreed, then a motion to extend the departure date is then put and probaly would pass.

And then we go on- step by step to either a coalition agreement that would pass or a referendum if stalemate is achieved. Passing a No to WTO Rules would mean this was already off the agenda and thus off the referendum paper.

 RomTheBear 19 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> "almost a third of respondents said they would be less likely to vote Labour" if it were committed to stopping Brexit.

> That tells me that a third of the country are  Brexiters. The rest of the article starts quoting figures based on whether respondents are Labour voters, but it is not suggested that this is the case for that headline figure. Given recent polls of 80% or so Brexit support among Labour voters, that would be surprising 

The point is simple though: if labour stops Brexit, their Brexit voters go to the tories and they have no chance to be in power.

If the tories stop Brexit, then they lose their Brexit voters to UKIP or other far rights groups , and they then are guaranteed to be wiped by labour.

So we have a situation where the best interest of both parties is to wait for the other to stop Brexit, and if that doesn't happen, no deal.

Truth of the matter is that in pure game theory principles no-deal Brexit is the logical outcome.

 

 SDM 19 Jan 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> What SDM said about the 3 options seems the logic of the process. 

> However, could they put in a Parliamentary Motion saying This House agrees not to have World Trade Organisation Rules as a Leave option.

> Ok ,it doesn't stop the Leave date on 29 march but sets the agenda to  extend the date if a coalition agreement isn't hammered out.

> If  framework of deal not agreed, then a motion to extend the departure date is then put and probaly would pass.

> And then we go on- step by step to either a coalition agreement that would pass or a referendum if stalemate is achieved. Passing a No to WTO Rules would mean this was already off the agenda and thus off the referendum paper.

We could try. But it would be out of our hands, the EU would have to agree to it. We can cancel Article 50 unilaterally, but to extend it would require EU agreement. 

If it was clear that we wanted to extend it in order to try a completely different tactic (e.g another referendum, a general election or agreeing to maintain freedom of movement) then there is a good chance they may agree. If we are delaying only to try again from the same negotiating position, they would be mad to accept. It would just be kicking the can down the road knowing that the outcome would remain the same.

With Theresa May's redlines (no freedom of movement, no customs union) and the EU's indivisible freedoms (freedom of movement for people, goods, capital and services) there really isn't much room for any alternative deal. 

 john arran 19 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

The part you're missing is that huge numbers of 'Labour voters' have no intention of voting Labour unless they feel it will offer a reasonable chance of at least a referendum. That's why Labour are so pathetically low in the polls. They have no hope of getting even their 2017 level of support without offering Remainers some hope, and they know it.

Like I said earlier, both parties actually want to court the huge Remain vote, even if both actually want to be seen to be agreeing to it reluctantly rather than actively pursuing it.

I think the party rebels on both sides wil be quietly encouraged to kick up enough fuss such that a second vote becomes a viable way to settle differences by letting the people decide. Then TM will breathe a sigh of relief as she's found a way out of her dead end. And JC will reluctantly agree because otherwise his party support would be in ruins.

1
 Dr.S at work 19 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

Indeed, something of being dragged towards the position you really want, whilst protesting loudly.

 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to john arran:

> The part you're missing is that huge numbers of 'Labour voters' have no intention of voting Labour unless they feel it will offer a reasonable chance of at least a referendum.

But the dynamic of FPTP means it doesn't matter. Hardcore remain labour voter will turn maybe to Lib Dem, as would the tories hardcore remainers, but on balance it doesn't change their position.

However any party that stops Brexit will see voters flee to its right, whilst gaining nothing useful elsewhere, and that would have a devastating impact.

 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Indeed, something of being dragged towards the position you really want, whilst protesting loudly.

And as you would have observed, they are protesting loudly against no-deal, but doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

What does that tell you ? The labour leadership wants a no-deal, that they can blame on the tories.

 Dr.S at work 20 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

Hmm, I’d say the opposite ~ being dragged towards a second referendum - but then I know you are a glass half empty person when it comes to U.K. politics

 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Hmm, I’d say the opposite ~ being dragged towards a second referendum - but then I know you are a glass half empty person when it comes to U.K. politics

Yes, the problem is that I've always been right so far on Brexit despite being decried as chief pessimist.

And believe me I want to be wrong.

A guy in the FT makes the same points as mine more eloquently than I can : 

"A no-deal Brexit is clearly not rational. But if you look at the incentives of each individual decision maker, you may find there are worse options than no deal for each one of them. For Mrs May, the very worst outcome would be to end up with no Brexit at all. For Mr Corbyn, a no-deal Brexit might be the best opportunity for an early general election. For Mr Varadkar, nothing would be more humiliating than to compromise on the backstop."

 

1
 Dr.S at work 20 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

That appears to suggest that the stated objectives of each actor are their true objectives. 

 jkarran 20 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Truth of the matter is that in pure game theory principles no-deal Brexit is the logical outcome.

If you ignore all the other consequences of no-deal for the people those MP's and parties represent and the impact those consequences will have on their future electability. Sure they could start a new blame game once the supermarkets empty, the factory gates are chained and people start dying for want of medication but these MPs are not perfect game playing robots we're discussing, they're people with emotions, complex intertwined responsibilities and loyalties that ultimately extend far beyond that owed to the party. Sure there are some real dimwits, extremists and shits amongst them but there are a lot of decent reasonable people too.

jk

Post edited at 18:05
 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> If you ignore all the other consequences of no-deal for the people those MP's and parties represent and the impact those consequences will have on their future electability. Sure they could start a new blame game once the supermarkets empty, the factory gates are chained and people start dying for want of medication but these MPs are not perfect game playing robots we're discussing, they're people with emotions, complex intertwined responsibilities and loyalties that ultimately extend far beyond that owed to the party. Sure there are some real dimwits, extremists and shits amongst them but there are a lot of decent reasonable people too.

Again, FPTP guarantees that both parties will be fine even if they f*ck up the country, as long as they can blame each other equally for the impending no-deal.

 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> That appears to suggest that the stated objectives of each actor are their true objectives. 

Hum no, the opposite, as you would have observed Labour has done absolutely nothing to prevent no-deal, despite shouting over the rooftops that they don't want it.

 jkarran 20 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Again, FPTP guarantees that both parties will be fine even if they f*ck up the country, as long as they can blame each other equally for the impending no-deal.

It has to date but they've never fu*ked up anything like this badly before. FPTP is a serious problem but there's no guarantee in this case it will fully insulate either party from the rage they will richly deserve should we crash out.

jk

 RomTheBear 20 Jan 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> It has to date but they've never fu*ked up anything like this badly before. FPTP is a serious problem but there's no guarantee in this case it will fully insulate either party from the rage they will richly deserve should we crash out.

Well yes sorry it does, if you get no-deal by default maybe the Lib Dem's get a bit of a boost but Tories/labour will still be ahead and neck to neck.

However if either party stop Brexit they automatically lose to the other. 

Ultimately the only way I can see it being stopped is if they can find a way to blame it on each other.

Post edited at 19:53
 mullermn 20 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

That’s where I think we are now.

May is trying to be forced to call a second referendum in the hope that remain wins and she gets a ‘forced’ to stop brexit. 

Corbyn, on the other hand, is trying to look like he’s simply implementing ‘the will of the people’, giving enough lip service to the pro ref/remain faction of the party to stop them breaking off, while all the time doing everthing he can to make sure a hard brexit goes through. 

 Dr.S at work 20 Jan 2019
In reply to mullermn:

exactly - my secret hope is that 'the submarine' has been playing a masterful long game of intentional incompetence.....

 RomTheBear 21 Jan 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> exactly - my secret hope is that 'the submarine' has been playing a masterful long game of intentional incompetence.....

Seems to me that her game is simply to push parliament into voting for her deal by  making sure they have no other alternative. And she may well succeed. (I hope she does cause otherwise I don't really see how you avoid no-deal)

1
 MargieB 26 Jan 2019
In reply to SDM:

I see your point about EU consent needed  for extension. Looks like Yvette Cooper in carefully wording her motion for an extension, leaves a space for discussion of brexit options , {dismissal thereof, agreement of a deal or even stalemate}. But she   is implying that when 29th of February comes round and, if nothing is achieved, by making an extension to the end of the year  she would implicitly give time for a referendum to be arranged to break the deadlock. Smart move as that gets Eu on side to give consent to extension and gets us to next step.

Parliament will discuss  options in next month. Dominic Grieve is moving quickly to dismiss WTO rules option as fast as possible, probably Tuesday. Leaving the rest. Aim of game to get  an agreement  or Aim of game is to leave two options on referendum paper, with Eu full membership as one of them for us to decide.

I'll bet on the latter because for some a  referendum on a detailed plan is a matter of principle even if your support a  Brexit deal. A  Parliamentary precedent  also for big moves like for eg Eu membership or independence.

I think it is happening this way?

Post edited at 11:08
 MargieB 27 Jan 2019
In reply to MargieB:

Are there any positives in this situation in general terms?

This could be an observation.

Politics in the UK has to shift to a coalition politics on singular issues, compelled by a now strong history of no overall majorities at election time. Coalitions provide the mechanism for government, cross party co-operation the order of the day

On the back of this, do we see a shift to  more "federalism" in the constitutional system for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Brexit crisis is forging this.

 

 

Post edited at 09:22
 RomTheBear 29 Jan 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> That appears to suggest that the stated objectives of each actor are their true.

Do you still believe that ?

1
 RomTheBear 29 Jan 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> On the back of this, do we see a shift to  more "federalism" in the constitutional system for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Brexit crisis is forging this.

Won’t happen. Westminster will not allow it. It is more likely that they’ll rescind/frustrate devolution by any means necessary.

Post edited at 19:58
1
 MargieB 31 Jan 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

It depends on who is voted in. At the moment we have a right wing majority with Cons and Dup. But if in 2020 there may be a left wing coalition [don't really think we will see big single party majority governments} ,-  won't that help devolution?. 

Even though we have a conservative coalition, at the moment" Brexit" is now becoming a cross party situation. Some of the Powers coming back to UK, have they not a better chance of being devolved now that people  of all parties are now around a table?

Say we have a referendum and we go back to EU. That still doesn't change the dynamic of our home elections and it seems there are no  big majorities on domestic issues-  so coalitions will again surface.

Maybe voting in elections is all the more important and one  would hope to see very high turnouts.

 oldie 31 Jan 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I'm surprised anyone in parliament is advocating a second referendum.... we've already opened that Pandora's box and discovered the uncomfortable contents. The outcome will be just as chaotic, if not more so after referendum number two....even if it went then other way. What then? ...best of three? <

Why MORE CHAOTIC? There was a peoples vote and since many now know a lot more about about possible outcomes, and indeed about how the EU actually works,, the most democratic thing would be to test it with another peoples vote. My concern is that it is possible that the majority would prefer to cancel Brexit but most MPs are  afraid to stand up and vote to test this. Incidentally I think there is also a good possibility that the result would be to continue with Brexit, which most Remainers would then have to accept.

I think someone suggested a Leave/May/Remain vote. If so there should perhaps be a second preference  for the least popular in the ballot  so one of the three options would get an absolute majority. Not perfect. Any better suggestions? But realistically it doesn't look like happening.

1
 RomTheBear 31 Jan 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> It depends on who is voted in. At the moment we have a right wing majority with Cons and Dup. But if in 2020 there may be a left wing coalition [don't really think we will see big single party majority governments} ,-  won't that help devolution?. 

I don't foresee a left wing coalition. 

 

 krikoman 01 Feb 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I'm surprised anyone in parliament is advocating a second referendum.... we've already opened that Pandora's box and discovered the uncomfortable contents. The outcome will be just as chaotic, if not more so after referendum number two....even if it went then other way. What then? ...best of three?


No if you have a second referendum, then at least people know what they are likely to get, and it's not £350m a week for the NHS is it?

How can it be undemocratic to have another vote?

2
 birdie num num 01 Feb 2019
In reply to krikoman:

I’m not sure I said anything about what might or might not be democratic. 

Another referendum would be highly interesting but I’m not sure it would necessarily give a desirable outcome. 

 

 MargieB 05 Feb 2019
In reply to birdie num num

Don't think a referendum will be called because it should be in principle. I mean, that is why it should happen in many people's mind, including my own. 

The liberal democrat leader put bluntly: A  second referendum is the practical , procedural  solution to an impasse. 

That impasse seems to be approaching and Ireland is not fully represented in the Westminster Parliament with DUP and that is crucial. Yvette Cooper could put her  delay amendment again and the close scores of last time suggest it has wings.  Then someone may put amendment of referendum.

Procedure replaces open warfare- and as the electorate we live off that principle.  A referendum may be the last resort mechanism to  avoid conflict and we all abide by the result. 

2
 birdie num num 05 Feb 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> In reply to birdie num num

 A referendum may be the last resort mechanism to  avoid conflict and we all abide by the result. 

The trouble is...I doubt if that would be true...

If a second referendum resulted closely to remain, the outcome would be conflict and if it resulted closely to leave then the outcome would be more impasse and uncertainty.

Most folk here seem to assume the result would be a clear and resounding majority to remain.

I'm not sure a second referendum would necessarily be helpful. It would be interesting though. Just remember....the general public voted for Boaty McBoatface...

 

 jkarran 05 Feb 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> I’m not sure I said anything about what might or might not be democratic. Another referendum would be highly interesting but I’m not sure it would necessarily give a desirable outcome. 

What is a desirable outcome?

A fresh mandate for parliament to get on with implementing one defined deliverable option or another is all that's really needed. I suspect it'll be politically impossible to keep 'no-deal' off a ballot and I suspect we'll choose it. If that's what the public wants knowing the consequences then so be it.

jk

 jkarran 05 Feb 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> If a second referendum resulted closely to remain, the outcome would be conflict and if it resulted closely to leave then the outcome would be more impasse and uncertainty.

A small leave majority hasn't lead to this deadlock, they've ploughed ahead with no regard for the 'losers', I don't see why that would change.

There is going to be trouble whatever happens, it's no reason to fear a remain decision, it just needs to be dealt with.

> Most folk here seem to assume the result would be a clear and resounding majority to remain.

Quite the opposite here, I think leave can and will win, it's still the romantic option, the internet hasn't been cleaned up and we're still banging on about the economy to people who don't believe it matters to them. I suspect depending upon the timing 'no-deal' could easily win, there has been much campaigning for this already done and it appears to have gained serious traction.

Despite that and speaking as someone who thinks we're making a grave mistake I still think since we now face only bad options we the people have to choose one. If it's imposed upon us, particularly if by a failure of of our democratic institutions or parliamentary shenanigans the problems that inevitably follow are only made worse.

> I'm not sure a second referendum would necessarily be helpful. It would be interesting though. Just remember....the general public voted for Boaty McBoatface...

We need a decision, through mistaken posturing and poor planning our politicians have ruled out the most sensible, the only way put it back on the table is to trust the public. I have low hopes. If they choose one of the less sensible options then fair enough, that is their (our) democratic right. Those of us who do not believe hard enough can always leave.

jk

1
 Mark Bannan 06 Feb 2019
In reply to SDM:

> How can you possibly take no deal off the table? ...

> Given the lack of any sense of agreement among our parliament for anything, the concept of removing no deal from the table is nonsense, regardless of how catastrophic it would be.

I for one still live in hope that enough common sense breaks out so that "no deal" (I agree with you that it is catastrophic) is ruled out at some point. I agree that 90% of the Tories are a bunch of mendacious, self-serving, privileged creeps, but I hope just enough of them might see sense at the eleventh hour. I do believe the entire opposition have already seen the sense of this option

3
 birdie num num 06 Feb 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> What is a desirable outcome?

> A fresh mandate for parliament to get on with implementing one defined deliverable option or another is all that's really needed. I suspect it'll be politically impossible to keep 'no-deal' off a ballot and I suspect we'll choose it. If that's what the public wants knowing the consequences then so be it.

> jk

There is no desirable outcome, just as there is no one defined deliverable option, and no return to 'Go'

Brexit is not under control and political paralysis is likely to force the lack of a deal.

 MargieB 06 Feb 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

If, in a referendum {triggered by Parliamentary impasse}, a slim majority voted for remaining a full member of EU, I think it would be seriously underestimating our cultural heritage not to see people abide by the majority vote. There was no major conflict in either the last Scottish Independence vote or EU vote. Both very narrow majorities with large number of "losers " of the vote

The language has to change for a referendum. No deal really is Trading under World Trade Organisation Rules. May's deal {tweaked or otherwise} and Full member of EU.

If WTO option to be put on referendum paper, I suspect we would have a preferential voting system of counting the votes and determining the winner. 

Yes, I agree, a second referendum is no foregone conclusion of" Remaining a full member f the EU" winning.

In fact, the mentality of leaving has become quite entrenched culturally after 2 years. The argument for Remaining a full member of Eu couldn't be neglected in any run up  to referendum.

However, if Dominic Grieve again creates his amendment for Parliament to take over the process and he wins, this makes way to discuss and dismiss various  Leave options that could result in only two options on the referendum paper as determined by the will of the Parliament .

Post edited at 19:21
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...