EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Tetchytyke]

Bearing in mind how badly the remain team presented their case in 2016 I'd doubt their ability to overcome the 'let's get on with it' view of the many unable to comprehend the complexity of the task

The Remain team's problem was to focus on facts and not the emotional aspect. But it's hard to put a strong emotional angle on "what we have ain't perfect, but it mostly works most of the time, why trash it?". A second referendum would face the same issue, though at least we could go with "think you're sick of the bickering now? If we leave it'll last for another 20 years!"

Interesting that even Farage thinks we should extend.

Farage is profiting from the chaos, look how much people close to him made on currency speculation when he "conceded defeat" back in 2016.

His party political broadcast last night wasn't suggesting an extension! "Clean break Brexit" is how they're trying to sell the carnage.

I don't think that anyone is saying that, numerically, the result was anything other than what it was: a majority vote for leaving the EU.

This. Nobody, least of all me, is saying Leave didn't win or that there's no mandate for some version of Leave. What I'm saying is a 1.8% majority is not the will of the people. It certainly isn't the will of the people for a destructive no deal Brexit, given that people were promised a deal.

The problem is, any compromise solution is dismissed as "leave in name only" or "worse than staying".

And in Ireland, any attempt to square the circle is dismissed as "undemocratic". Ideas on how to have a strong border whilst simultaneously having no border in Ireland or the Irish Sea on a postcard to The Mekon.

 

[EM2]

The front page of today's Times is quite something:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers

"Deliver Brexit or face riots," is the headline on the front of the Times, as it quotes a senior cabinet minister telling the paper the country risked a "violent, popular uprising" if a second referendum on EU membership overturned the result of the first one.

From 'sunlit uplands' and 'considerable upside' to 'do as we want or our supporters will riot'.

 

[ainsworth74]

At least the end game is out in the open now I suppose!

 

[edwin_m]

Without a groundswell of support for remaining we're stuck with leaving and making the best of it.

If I could see a 70% vote to remain I'd be for a second referendum. It would take months to organise. Bearing in mind how badly the remain team presented their case in 2016 I'd doubt their ability to overcome the 'let's get on with it' view of the many unable to comprehend the complexity of the task

I disagree strongly with this. There's the moral principle of not letting liars and bullies get their way (isn't that the real Blitz spirit?). But also the "complexity of the task" is likely to bring just as much disruption and possible unrest as standing up to them and saying that we'll only do this if a referendum confirms that it's actually still what people want.

Nobody, least of all me, is saying … there's no mandate for some version of Leave.

You may not be saying that but I'm getting close to. There may have been a rather shaky mandate for some version of Leave in 2016, but there almost certainly isn't one for any specific version of Leave now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You may not be saying that but I'm getting close to.

I'm getting very close too! Especially when fash like Farage are saying they'll orchestrate riots if they don't get their extreme Brexit.

 

[DarloRich]

We actually do not know what the advice was because it was not released so you have no way of saying it was consistent with precedent. But I think it reasonable to assume given the facts that Boris is quoted as asking the AG for advice on prorogation , and then went ahead and attempted to prorogation , coupled with with Geoffrey Cox's statements on the matter that the AG did advise the Prime minister that what he attempted to do was Lawful , the supreme court ruled it Unlawful meaning the advice that it was Lawful was incorrect and thus worthless

but that is what happens if you are a lawyer. From time to time precedent changes. To focus on that seems pointless UNLESS the PM acted against the advice of his AG.

a) we don't know what the advice was and b) proroguing in such a fashion is unprecedented.

Other than that...

b was one of the questions tested by the court. Unprecedented does not mean illegal.

As for A i cant believe the AG ( or his advisors) would offer advice that wasn't accurate based on precedent at the time The simple fact is that no one knew and until it was tested in court it was fair to assume the action was legal.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As for A i cant believe the AG ( or his advisors) would offer advice that wasn't accurate

Can you not? Really? Really really?

The AG is a politician. Don't forget that. Grieve was also previously AG, and he thought it unlawful.

The AG may have advisers but, as we've seen recently, anyone who dares disagree with The Mekon gets told, quite literally, to f*** off.

As for "accurate based on precedent", that is why I said the action was unprecedented. It was without precedent.

What, I suspect, actually happened is that Boris and The Mekon thought the Supreme Court would be too scared to declare it unlawful and would get out of it by saying it's a political decision. The High Court were and did, after all.

 

[Killingworth]

I disagree strongly with this. There's the moral principle of not letting liars and bullies get their way (isn't that the real Blitz spirit?). But also the "complexity of the task" is likely to bring just as much disruption and possible unrest as standing up to them and saying that we'll only do this if a referendum confirms that it's actually still what people want.

You may not be saying that but I'm getting close to. There may have been a rather shaky mandate for some version of Leave in 2016, but there almost certainly isn't one for any specific version of Leave now.

I wish it was otherwise, but although the majority on here, as well as most I associate with, would vote remain a very large proportion of the electorate haven't considered the details and are being swayed by the toxic atmosphere. There was a majority to leave. Our MPs committed themselves to leave. I may be prepared to march to remain. How would that help?

I've tried to discuss details with staunch Brexiteers - they don't want to listen let alone know. Leave means leave. The people voted to leave. Brexit means Brexit are the sum total of their argument. Unfortunately most of the populace just wants it over with. Don't we all? There's a very big danger they'd vote to leave again, and by a bigger majority.

A second confirmatory referendum? Yes, Rees Mogg actually suggested that years ago. In fact he would be afraid of one now; https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...-referendum-would-overturn-brexit-vote/02/09/

All the bombast from Cox and Johnson has caused ripples. The threat to die in a ditch on 31st October is a promise Boris may live to regret. It has added to the toxic atmosphere as very many want to see how he fulfils that statement. This isn't June 1940 when Churchill promised to fight on the beaches and never surrender. Boris seems to think he's continuing in his shoes. He's not.

My concern is the fickle nature of ill understanding public opinion swayed by the Daily Express, Telegraph, Daily Mail and so many internet sources. A referendum could take 22 weeks to prepare. On the one hand that might give enough time to think. On the other the bull headed red necks would have plenty of time for their campaign of intimidation.

(It might give time for Labour to elect a better leader and deputy, but that's probably too much to expect.)

 

[DarloRich]

Can you not? Really? Really really?

The AG is a politician. Don't forget that. Grieve was also previously AG, and he thought it unlawful.

The AG may have advisers but, as we've seen recently, anyone who dares disagree with The Mekon gets told, quite literally, to f*** off.

As for "accurate based on precedent", that is why I said the action was unprecedented. It was without precedent.

What, I suspect, actually happened is that Boris and The Mekon thought the Supreme Court would be too scared to declare it unlawful and would get out of it by saying it's a political decision. The High Court were and did, after all.

If the advice from the advisors was do not do this I cant see the ag ignoring that.

I can see him offering a favorable view if there is any wiggle room but not an outright lie

I agree that boris and his chums thought they would get away with it!

 

[Killingworth]

If the advice from the advisors was do not do this I cant see the ag ignoring that.

I can see him offering a favorable view if there is any wiggle room but not an outright lie

I agree that boris and his chums thought they would get away with it!

Once it went to the Supreme Court they must have expected to lose. They presented no supporting evidence of reason. If they'd won the precedent would have been alarming. Corbyn (assuming he ever got to power) could do the same, and prorogue for 6 months, 3 years or longer.

John Major's 3 week prorogation in March 1997 has been claimed to have prevented discussion of the forthcoming cash-for-questions report that finally appeared in July. After the ruling this week he might have had to think again.

 

[dosxuk]

They may now be thinking that the a policy of unilaterally revoking was a mistake. But I think it's safe to say that a vote for any LibDem is a vote to stop Brexit.

On the contrary, I think they're quite happy with it.

Nobody, including the lib Dems themselves, expect them to win an outright majority at the next election. In fact, right now, few people think there will be a majority for any party - so we're into hung parliament territory. In those circumstances, the libs could well become the second or third largest party, involving them in coalition talks. Those talks require compromise from both sides, so if you went into those talks with a "all our voters clearly voted to remain, and you want to leave/stay on the fence, how about we drop our plan to revoke and in exchange we have a second referendum, your plan Vs remain"...

 

[Killingworth]

I know we don't like the Express for it's Brexit policy but they seem to think Boris will keep within the law and leave on 31st October. According to them EU law may trump the Benn/surrender act rendering it inoperative.

As always, the lawyers will be looking to do well.

 

[edwin_m]

On the contrary, I think they're quite happy with it.

Nobody, including the lib Dems themselves, expect them to win an outright majority at the next election. In fact, right now, few people think there will be a majority for any party - so we're into hung parliament territory. In those circumstances, the libs could well become the second or third largest party, involving them in coalition talks. Those talks require compromise from both sides, so if you went into those talks with a "all our voters clearly voted to remain, and you want to leave/stay on the fence, how about we drop our plan to revoke and in exchange we have a second referendum, your plan Vs remain"...

Not sure. They got themselves a bit of publicity for it, but it allowed Labour to have a go at them as being extreme where Labour was being moderate (!) by trying to bridge the gap. I think it was Emily Thornberry who made the point that the only way the LibDems would get a majority was on about 30% of the vote if the other parties ended up hopelessly split, in which case I would say they had no mandate to revoke.

 

[Ianno87]

A second confirmatory referendum? Yes, Rees Mogg actually suggested that years ago. In fact he would be afraid of one now; https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...-referendum-would-overturn-brexit-vote/02/09/

.....snip.....

My concern is the fickle nature of ill understanding public opinion swayed by the Daily Express, Telegraph, Daily Mail and so many internet sources. A referendum could take 22 weeks to prepare. On the one hand that might give enough time to think. On the other the bull headed red necks would have plenty of time for their campaign of intimidation.

(It might give time for Labour to elect a better leader and deputy, but that's probably too much to expect.)

That's one of my concerns for a second ref...in the time needed to set it up, it'll all just descend further into emotional agressive nonesense, not fact-based judgement and debate.

A referendum would really need to be "snap" to capture the genuine public belief....but the logistics don't work.

 

[Wombat]

A second confirmatory referendum? Yes, Rees Mogg actually suggested that years ago. In fact he would be afraid of one now; https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/n...-referendum-would-overturn-brexit-vote/02/09/

Good grief, I hadn't noticed that. So his position is that we can't have a second referendum because the electorate has changed it's mind, which sounds to me like the best imaginable argument in favour of a second referendum. This has actually become properly insane.

 

[Killingworth]

Having turned on Sky News I find Nigel giving a storming performance. Very convincing. If only there were anyone on the Remain side who could have spoken with such fervour.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The latest throw of the dice by the big BJ may just backfire. The Tories are refusing to deny that they would make an order in council to suspend the Benn Bill, and may well go through with it. That will lead directly to a vote of no-confidence and a caretaker PM, supported by the no hard Brexit faction.

Now.... if Corbyn were to be that PM that saved the country and actually managed to get to and beyond a second referendum without a major faux-pas, what would that do for his approval ratings and future electability?

 

[muz379]

but that is what happens if you are a lawyer. From time to time precedent changes. To focus on that seems pointless UNLESS the PM acted against the advice of his AG.

Without seeing the advice how can you possibly say that this is just a situation in which precedent changed . Or whether it was a situation in which the AG's advice was fundamentally flawed for some reason , truth is unless that advice is released we wont know . You have indicated from your comments that you personally feel the AG would not give dodgy advice , I remain to be convinced . I mean reading the judgement it seems to me that the Supreme court has not actually stretched precedent that far ,and has merely applied fairly basic constitutional conventions to the situation that occurred and found that the effects of the decision to prorogue for so long coupled with the absence of any justification for it make the prorogation unlawful .

But I think this debate is fairly moot anyway now that the court has made judgement and this will be personally for me the last word on the matter of the advice , as I said earlier I really was not intending to shift focus onto the advice as it was , I was merely making a tongue in cheek comment about Geoffrey Cox's evident rage .

 

[muz379]

The latest throw of the dice by the big BJ may just backfire. The Tories are refusing to deny that they would make an order in council to suspend the Benn Bill, and may well go through with it.

This 'refusing to deny" is stretching it a bit IMO , Alok Sharma the secretary of state for international development was pressed on John Majors suggestion about this being something the government could do and did not explicitly rule it out ,on balance though looking at it , Sharma was both unprepared for the question and does not have a legal background so probably was not the best person to ask a question about a nuanced area of constitutional law , I personally think this suggestion is something of a non starter and the story in the press about it is much ado about nothing . .

Just on a legal basis though , an order in council cannot be used to suspend the effects of an act of parliament , that is a fairly basic and clear provision of the Bill of rights 1688 .

Another mooted idea by Major is an order of council made under a statutory power , specifically the civil contingencies act 2004 . This can be used to suspend the effects of an act of parliament . But reading the requirements from the aforementioned act it seems unlikely to me that anything currently occurring would meet the conditions for an "emergency" as required to suspend legislation under powers within the act .The second test after there being an emergency is that the suspension of the effects of a piece of legislation are necessary for the resolution of the emergency .

A judicial review sought against an order in council attempting to suspend the effects of the legislation in question would undoubtedly without question succeed because just on a black and white legal basis it is wrong , even a layperson could see such

A judicial review against an order of council might involve some more legal argument about the reasoning for the power being exercised but even then in my view would succeed .

Dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.

 

[bramling]

The latest throw of the dice by the big BJ may just backfire. The Tories are refusing to deny that they would make an order in council to suspend the Benn Bill, and may well go through with it. That will lead directly to a vote of no-confidence and a caretaker PM, supported by the no hard Brexit faction.

Now.... if Corbyn were to be that PM that saved the country and actually managed to get to and beyond a second referendum without a major faux-pas, what would that do for his approval ratings and future electability?

I think there would be a lot of hoops to jump through before that worked out. He would have to:

Take over smoothly from BJ, without upsetting people by getting into bed with the SNP who are pretty toxic elsewhere in the U.K.

Sort out a deal rather than just be seen to block no deal or keep seeking extensions, and at the same time address freedom of movement in a way which satisfies the population

Reassure people that Labour’s Marxist tendencies will not hurt *their* personal tax bill or child’s private school education

All the above whilst keeping a lid on tensions and divisions within his party, including reconciling the divide between MPs, Labour voters, Momentum and the membership.

A very tall order for someone who hasn’t shown himself to.l be particularly able or astute.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think there would be a lot of hoops to jump through before that worked out. He would have to:

Take over smoothly from BJ, without upsetting people by getting into bed with the SNP who are pretty toxic elsewhere in the U.K.

Personally, I'd regard SNP involvement in a Government as infinitely preferable to a PM who brazenly makes speeches clearly designed to undermine respect for the judiciary, uses words that are likely to incite violence against his opponents, and dismisses as 'humbug' the safety concerns of MPs who have faced repeated death threats and rape threats. Respecting the law and not encouraging extremists counts as somewhat higher in my priorities than disagreeing with the SNP about Scottish Independence.

More generally, I'd rather imagine the people who regard the SNP as toxic are almost entirely right wing people who would never dream of voting Labour anyway. Caring for the sensibilities of those people regarding the SNP is probably not going to be a priority for a Labour-led Government.

 

[bramling]

Personally, I'd regard SNP involvement in a Government as infinitely preferable to a PM who brazenly makes speeches clearly designed to undermine respect for the judiciary, uses words that are likely to incite violence against his opponents, and dismisses as 'humbug' the safety concerns of MPs who have faced repeated death threats and rape threats. Respecting the law and not encouraging extremists counts as somewhat higher in my priorities than disagreeing with the SNP about Scottish Independence.

More generally, I'd rather imagine the people who regard the SNP as toxic are almost entirely right wing people who would never dream of voting Labour anyway. Caring for the sensibilities of those people regarding the SNP is probably not going to be a priority for a Labour-led Government.

I don’t agree with that at all.

In my experience SNP are pretty disliked across the board. Whilst Salmond had a certain like-ability to him (which may well prove to be misplaced depending on the outcome of the sex scandal), Sturgeon comes across as bitter, hateful, divisive, opportunist and hypocritical. Even Plaid Cymru have been negative about the SNP at times as they see Scottish spending trumping that of Wales. My parents (voted exclusively Labour) tut and sigh whenever SNP raise their heads, especially Blackford’s angry rants in the house.

Wasn’t it the prospect of a Labour/SNP deal which was regarded as being partly responsible for Cameron doing very much better than expected in 2015?

 

[Puffing Devil]

I don’t agree with that at all.

Sturgeon comes across as bitter, hateful, divisive, opportunist and hypocritical.

Add pathological liar into that and you've captured many people's opinion of Boris.

 

[edwin_m]

Leaving aside their motivations and beliefs for a moment, I'd say the SNP leadership is far more competent and able to deliver than that of either Labour or Conservatives. If you happen to oppose Scottish independence then you should be in favour of at least one of the other parties being functional enough to form a viable government - and to take notice of the views of Scots instead of ignoring or alienating them as the Conservatives have done for the May and most of the Cameron years, not to mention the Johnson weeks.

 

[Killingworth]

The more we go on about this I'm reminded how we collectively understand less and less about the pros and cons of all the intricate details and implications of leaving and remaining.

I'm reminded of Lord Palmerston's comment about the Schleswig-Holstein question when he said that it was "so complicated only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, and he's dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I've forgotten all about it."

I fear all the rhetoric is removing us from understanding. It illustrates how wars begin without thought for the disproportionate damage to be done to all sides by the conflict.

 

[fowler9]

The more we go on about this I'm reminded how we collectively understand less and less about the pros and cons of all the intricate details and implications of leaving and remaining.

I'm reminded of Lord Palmerston's comment about the Schleswig-Holstein question when he said that it was "so complicated only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, and he's dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I've forgotten all about it."

I fear all the rhetoric is removing us from understanding. It illustrates how wars begin without thought for the disproportionate damage to be done to all sides by the conflict.

Well said. It has become almost like a football rivalry. Ha ha. No one is backing down from supporting their side even if they aren't entirely sure why it was their side in the first place. Ha ha. I genuinely fear for the country.

 

[kermit]

Well said. It has become almost like a football rivalry. Ha ha. No one is backing down from supporting their side even if they aren't entirely sure why it was their side in the first place. Ha ha. I genuinely fear for the country.

Nail on the head. It feels like we are sleepwalking into a Civil War.

 

[SteveP29]

What bothered me recently was a guy on Facebook sharing what he believes is the Lisbon Treaty. It was so outlandish that even Johnson or Rees-Mogg couldn't get away with arguing it was true but this guy had hundreds of acolytes swearing it was the genuine thing

I've seen that so many times on Facebook and am currently trying to get actual answers from a Brexit Party candidate who is aiming to stand against the standing MP in my home town.
He continues to mention that the worst parts of the Lisbon Treaty come into force in 2020.
I've asked him to let us know about the BP's policies on education, health, social care, crime, trade, transport etc, he either refuses to answer or has told me that he won't answer questions because some of them that he gets from others are very ludicrous, so out of respect won't answer any.
My counter is that he can't, because he doesn't, it's all Brexit now and errr err the unelected bureacrats.
He even suggested I should join the BP and we could sit down and have a pint.
People are now getting sick of his constant postings about Brexit in the town's Facebook page and the tide is turning, he doesn't seem to understand he's alienating the voters he's trying to persuade.

 

[nlogax]

Nail on the head. It feels like we are sleepwalking into a Civil War.

I worry about exactly that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nail on the head. It feels like we are sleepwalking into a Civil War.

If you would include in that a restart of the Troubles I think that is a huge risk.