EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[bramling]

If we had virtually any other voting system but FPTP, both parties would have imploded by now over the Brexit divide. Neither are trusted, popular or desirable, which bizarrely increases their vote share because people are more worried about the other lot getting in. I wonder how many of the people who voted for Labour in the last GE did it because they wanted Corbyn in charge compared to those just not wanting May in charge.

Both parties are in trouble, for different reasons. However I think there's a deeper issue which could start to bite very soon, which is a complete loss of public confidence in the political system. Two parties whom few actually want to vote *for*, two parties who can't seem to offer policies to appeal to the mainstream (Corbyn offering extreme policies, and May offered nothing really at the last election which I think largely explains the result), and a political system not making a slick job of delivering a referendum result. Add to this a manifesto voted for in 2015 left largely undelivered and a PM who went off in a strop, and a further election no one really wanted, perhaps with more to come.

I would say all this would probably resolve itself, but there also happens to be a major lack of talent in *all* the parties. Even the SNP seem to have peaked. Seems to be recipe for a perfect storm, and all of this is completely independent of Brexit -- which just happens to be a test of a failing system.

 

[dosxuk]

May offered nothing really at the last election which I think largely explains the result)

You're forgetting the U-turns - May's manifesto promised several extremely unpopular policies, like changes to how later life care was funded, that went down so badly she had to "clarify" the meaning of a couple of times before abandoning them. Her advisors had told her, "you've got this, it's in the bag, what stuff do you want to get on the books that you'd never normally have the opportunity to do?" and she'd run with it. It never once crossed her mind she might not win.

 

[Kite159]

Its in his nature to leave Europe also which you seem to forget, so maybe he will vote with her for a good deal to get his way

But will the smell of potential power by voting against whatever deal in the hope to forcing an election make him 'change his mind'?

 

[northwichcat]

I haven't yet understood what Corbyn's "offer" is. I suspect he's hoping to widen the split within the Tory Party in order to make an election more likely. I don't think we need the diversion of an election while we're trying to resolve the matter of our future relationship with the EU, and it's very unclear what sort of deal Corbyn could achieve if he was in charge.

According to Robert Peston he's said Labour will vote to accept Brexit if 6 key tests are met and those key tests are inline with what the EU wants from Brexit, meaning it's more workable than the chequers deal. However, the point he went on to make was one of those key tests is a red line for the Tory Brexiteers so Corbyn's effectively given May a choice of:
1. A Brexit deal which half of her own party won't back but will get through parliament due to having Labour support.
2. A Brexit deal which most of her own party will back but if some rebel there's a risk of it not getting voted through, in which case Corbyn will try and get a General Election.

 

[muddythefish]

Like it or not, Corbyn and the Labour party have an offer that appeals to a significant proportion of the population.

They are challenging the dogmatic belief in eternal Tory austerity and the untrammelled right of those at the top of society to enrich themselves at the cost of those at the bottom. They want something fairer for the nation as a whole.

That involves decent homes, useful meaningful work and incomes on which people can sustain themselves and their dependents without resort to social security. To the shame of the Tories and Lib Dems, Corbyn is the only game in town, as things stand.

On the same day as he addressed the Labour conference, May was promising the rapacious titans of US business that her government is on their side. Work out which message is going to appeal to voters in the UK - here's a clue, it won't be chlorinated chicken or privatisation of the NHS.

Ignoring the left and right wing press, the commentaries in some of the more independent minded newspapers are interesting. Whilst Corbyn receives criticism at times, they also display an awareness of the challenges facing the nation and business and how Corbyn's Labour is responding to them.

The neoliberalism (Thatcherism) of the past 40 years is finished. There is sense about the country that the UK needs radical reform with radical solutions.
The wind of change blowing. If, as seems likely, the Tories make a complete balls of Brexit, Labour will be the only source of salvation.

 

[Howardh]

We now have a Minister to make sure we get fed.

MP David Rutley (ex Asda and Pepsico) has been appointed minister to oversee the protection of food supplies through the Brexit process amid "rising concerns about the effect of a no-deal departure from the EU".

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...upplies-minister-amid-fears-of-no-deal-brexit
How much lower can Brexit sink?

 

[3141]

According to Robert Peston he's said Labour who vote to accept Brexit if 6 key tests are met and those key tests are inline with what the EU wants from Brexit, meaning it's more workable than the chequers deal. However, the point he went on to make was one of those key tests is a red line for the Tory Brexiteers so Corbyn's effectively given May a choice of:
1. A Brexit deal which half of her own party won't back but will get through parliament due to having Labour support.
2. A Brexit deal which most of her own party will back but if some rebel there's a risk of it not getting voted through, in which case Corbyn will try and get a General Election.

Thanks for attempting to clarify that. "Attempting", because Labour's six key tests could only be met by staying in the EU. At least one of them is a red line not just for Tory Brexiteers but also for many who voted to leave. They are a load of pious waffle and designed to justify not supporting any deal that the government might get. For option 1 above to happen Labour would have to compromise to a considerable extent on all of its tests. In the case of option 2, and Corbyn as Prime Minister, it's inconceivable that he could get a deal from the EU that both met his tests and satisfied Labour supporters who voted to leave. Of course he could always say they'd been met.

 

[Clip]

But will the smell of potential power by voting against whatever deal in the hope to forcing an election make him 'change his mind'?

Nope - he has already said he would get into power and then still negotiate to leave.

Remember there are more voters who support Labour who voted to leave than there are members of Labour who want to stay

 

[northwichcat]

Thanks for attempting to clarify that. "Attempting", because Labour's six key tests could only be met by staying in the EU. At least one of them is a red line not just for Tory Brexiteers but also for many who voted to leave. They are a load of pious waffle and designed to justify not supporting any deal that the government might get. For option 1 above to happen Labour would have to compromise to a considerable extent on all of its tests. In the case of option 2, and Corbyn as Prime Minister, it's inconceivable that he could get a deal from the EU that both met his tests and satisfied Labour supporters who voted to leave. Of course he could always say they'd been met.

Norway is not in the EU, Switzerland is not in the EU, Canada is not in the EU, Zimbabwe is not in the EU - don't some of those have a relationship with the EU which would pass Corbyn's tests? Many Brexiteers seem to think we should get a Canada style deal but seem to forget Canada's closest trading partners are not in Europe so the best interests of Canada are not the same as the best interests of the UK - our biggest trading partner is Germany.

 

[3141]

Norway is not in the EU, Switzerland is not in the EU, Canada is not in the EU, Zimbabwe is not in the EU - don't some of those have a relationship with the EU which would pass Corbyn's tests? Many Brexiteers seem to think we should get a Canada style deal but seem to forget Canada's closest trading partners are not in Europe so the best interests of Canada are not the same as the best interests of the UK - our biggest trading partner is Germany.

If these are Labour's tests:-
Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

then many Leave voters wouldn't support a deal that includes the first two, and a lot of them would have difficulty with the third, whatever it means. It would be easy to claim that a deal met 4 and 6, or that the same deal totally failed them, depending on what conclusion you wanted to reach.

 

[northwichcat]

If these are Labour's tests:-
Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

then many Leave voters wouldn't support a deal that includes the first two, and a lot of them would have difficulty with the third, whatever it means. It would be easy to claim that a deal met 4 and 6, or that the same deal totally failed them, depending on what conclusion you wanted to reach.

Surely the best thing is to get a deal the majority of the population are happy with. If 65% of the population are happy with the deal, does it matter that 'leave won' and a third of those who voted leave think the Brexit deal isn't good enough?

 

[Howardh]

Surely the best thing is to get a deal the majority of the population are happy with. If 65% of the population are happy with the deal, does it matter that 'leave won' and a third of those who voted leave think the Brexit deal isn't good enough?

It appears Brexiters want to deprive the country of a vote to find if what emerges has majority approval. I just hope that whatever the deal is, it upsets most who voted "leave" as they have denied themselves a say on the outcome!!

 

[birchesgreen]

Corbyn offering extreme policies

I don't think they are extreme policies, on the whole they would be pretty mainstream up until the 1980s

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think they are extreme policies, on the whole they would be pretty mainstream up until the 1980s

Let's not forget that giving worker's shares in companies has been proposed recently by both David Cameron and Liz Kendall before now (not exactly hard left politicians.) Although, the Conservatives under Cameron saw it as something that should be in exchange for forfeiting worker's rights which is why the Lib Dems refused to back it - shares in a failing business is no substitute for a redundancy payment.

 

[Groningen]

Jacob Rees-Megg had tweeted this week the good figures about youth unemployment. In a few moments. I will tweet him that the youth of the UK are also good drinkers in the EU. They are in first place. Yes; something to be proud about! The Netherlands is at place 25.

 

[northwichcat]

Jacob Rees-Megg had tweeted this week the good figures about youth unemployment.

I fail to see how young people on fake apprenticeships paying £3.70 an hour is good, it might be better than nothing but it's certainly not good. When I say fake apprenticeships I mean ones where someone is working as waiting staff, a horse groomer etc. instead of things like an electrician, an engineer etc.

 

[3141]

Surely the best thing is to get a deal the majority of the population are happy with. If 65% of the population are happy with the deal, does it matter that 'leave won' and a third of those who voted leave think the Brexit deal isn't good enough?

That's not what Labour are "offering".

The best deal for Britain, in the longer run, may not be what 65% of the population are happy with in 2019, being at that point just glad there is a deal. Some would be happy if there was no deal.

 

[northwichcat]

That's not what Labour are "offering".

How do you know? There's been no public vote on what Labour are proposing so there's no way of saying the majority of the population wouldn't be happy with it.

The best deal for Britain, in the longer run, may not be what 65% of the population are happy with in 2019, being at that point just glad there is a deal. Some would be happy if there was no deal.

The best deal for Britain in the long term may not also be what 51.8% wanted in 2016. Any deal agreed doesn't have to be the same forever or remain in place forever. Going straight from the EU to no deal at all would be the worst thing possible for Britain. It'd be like becoming homeless because you sold your house - agreeing a deal to remain in your house until you have something else ready to move in to would be the only sensible way forward even if the unelected spokesman for Brexiteers (Farage) doesn't want a transitional period and would accept no deal

 

[3141]

We're at cross-purposes here. According to what you said in #11675, Labour are offering to vote for a deal that meets their six tests. In #11682 you wrote about a deal "the majority of the population are happy with". That's a very different matter. Unless there's an aspect that I haven't found yet, Labour haven't got a clear deal, they have some principles a deal should meet, and their principles are capable of a wide range of interpretations.

 

[northwichcat]

We're at cross-purposes here. According to what you said in #11675, Labour are offering to vote for a deal that meets their six tests. In #11682 you wrote about a deal "the majority of the population are happy with". That's a very different matter.

Post 11681 you said

many Leave voters wouldn't support a deal that includes the first two, and a lot of them would have difficulty with the third,

That's what I have an issue with. Leave on the terms the government thinks is best is what won the referendum, consequently there is no kind of Brexit which everyone who voted leave will be happy with. Therefore, I'm saying a deal which the majority (of all voters) are happy with would be much better than trying to find a Brexit compromise which suits all Leave voters.

Unless you were trying to suggest Labour's position means leave voters are less likely to vote for them I don't see how we were talking cross purposes.

 

[3141]

That's what I have an issue with. Leave on the terms the government thinks is best is what won the referendum, consequently there is no kind of Brexit which everyone who voted leave will be happy with. Therefore, I'm saying a deal which the majority (of all voters) are happy with would be much better than trying to find a Brexit compromise which suits all Leave voters.

The question in the referendum was simply "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", not "leave on the terms the government thinks best".

I agree "there is no kind of Brexit which everyone who voted leave will be happy with", because there were many different motives.

I can't imagine a deal that the majority of all voters would be happy with, in relation to the position they took in June 2016. There might now be one that a majority are least unhappy with. It's unlikely that such a deal will meet Labour's six tests, which are like trying to square the circle.

 

[northwichcat]

The question in the referendum was simply "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", not "leave on the terms the government thinks best".

A referendum is not legally binding and only there to inform the government of the opinion of the public. However, the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos said they would act on the referendum result and if people voted for leave they would get the best possible deal for us. Given the leaving terms were not set before the referendum, I don't know how you could be under the impression that we would not be leaving under the terms the government decided on, unless you were expecting a second referendum on the leaving terms (which hadn't been promised.)

I can't imagine a deal that the majority of all voters would be happy with, in relation to the position they took in June 2016. There might now be one that a majority are least unhappy with. It's unlikely that such a deal will meet Labour's six tests, which are like trying to square the circle.

If you give the 48.2% of remain voters a choice of accepting a deal which meets Labour's six tests or leaving the EU without a deal I'd be surprised if a significant number of the 48.2% voted for no deal. As you said before some Brexiteers will vote for no deal but if the choice was a deal which meets Labour's tests or no deal then I'd be very surprised if taking the whole population in to consideration there isn't an overwhelming majority for the deal over no deal.

 

[3141]

A referendum is not legally binding and only there to inform the government of the opinion of the public. However, the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos said they would act on the referendum result and if people voted for leave they would get the best possible deal for us. Given the leaving terms were not set before the referendum, I don't know how you could be under the impression that we would not be leaving under the terms the government decided on, unless you were expecting a second referendum on the leaving terms (which hadn't been promised.)

You've misunderstood what I was saying, and that may also be what had happened earlier, as a result of which I said we were at cross-purposes.

If you give the 48.2% of remain voters a choice of accepting a deal which meets Labour's six tests or leaving the EU without a deal I'd be surprised if a significant number of the 48.2% voted for no deal. As you said before some Brexiteers will vote for no deal but if the choice was a deal which meets Labour's tests or no deal then I'd be very surprised if taking the whole population in to consideration there isn't an overwhelming majority for the deal over no deal.

Since the six tests are a contradictory mish-mash there's unlikely ever to be a deal which meets them, though Labour (if in power) might say there's one that does. I agree there'd probably be more people who'd support a deal rather than no deal, partly because they just want to get the matter settled somehow.

 

[mmh]

So instead of competing with the likes of Germany and France and having a greater say, and maybe playing a dominant role in future, we give up and walk away.

Yes.

It also has to be said that the (Dis) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is far from a union of equal countries and regions, and that disillusionment with London ought to be far greater than it is with Brussels.

And hiding our own problems behind some nonsensical idea of European unity so they're never likely to be properly addressed is no solution.

 

[mmh]

Those "minor" economies have benefited enormously from being in the EU - do you see them clamouring to leave ?

Yes, I do see them doing exactly that when they see it's possible to leave. There's significant anti-EU sentiment across Europe, the UK leaving can only increase that.

 

[mmh]

If we had virtually any other voting system but FPTP, both parties would have imploded by now over the Brexit divide. Neither are trusted, popular or desirable, which bizarrely increases their vote share because people are more worried about the other lot getting in. I wonder how many of the people who voted for Labour in the last GE did it because they wanted Corbyn in charge compared to those just not wanting May in charge.

An insignificant number. Major won a general election. There will be more people deserting Labour than joining if they actually do take the throw-the-spanner-in approach to Brexit.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yes, I do see them doing exactly that when they see it's possible to leave. There's significant anti-EU sentiment across Europe, the UK leaving can only increase that.

In the majority are they just not vile little creatures that are coming out of the woodwork because they see things like Brexit? They feel more comfortable with their sickness as they think they see it reflected in the faces of others.

Another super side affect - thanks

 

[bnm]

Yes, I do see them doing exactly that when they see it's possible to leave. There's significant anti-EU sentiment across Europe, the UK leaving can only increase that.

Define 'significant'.

Just two EU member states, when their citizens were opinion polled ("Should our country leave the EU?") in 2017, could muster more than 30% in favour of leaving. Greece 36%. Italy 34%.

Do you honestly think that other countries are looking at how the UK is managing the leave process and thinking, "Well, that's going fantastically, let's do the same."

 

[dosxuk]

With the French and German leave groups now all but disbanded, Greece finding there wasn't enough support to leave even while the whole EU bail out stuff was going on, and the EU managing to work as a unified block in the Brexit negotiations rather than splintering as we were told, IMHO it's going be a long while before another country decides to dip their toes in the unicorn pot.

If Brexit has done one thing, it's bringing the rest of Europe together in agreement that they're better off together, even if it's not always smooth sailing.

 

[gysev]

If Brexit has done one thing, it's bringing the rest of Europe together in agreement that they're better off together, even if it's not always smooth sailing.

That reminds me of an interview I saw earlier this year with Ivo Belet, a Belgian member of the European Parlement. Asked about his views about Brexit, he said he was very sad when he saw the result of the referendum but later he realised it could be a perfect opportunity to strenghten the EU. After all, the UK always was "difficult" about this because they always wanted exceptions and compensations. As if they joined a football club but in fact wanted to play rugby.