Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[caratacus]

Ok. So we go with your suggestion of a general election. There are many possible outcomes. I have a lot of sympathy with your statement that it should've been straightaway but it's too late now.

Anyway we have the election.
Scenario 1 - Conservative majority.
Scenario 2 - Labour majority.
Scenario 3 - Conservative largest party, no majority.
Scenario 4 - Labour largest party, no overall majority.
Scenario 5 - a surprise comeback for the Lib Dems where the 3 major parties have similar numbers of seats, say 200ish.

Please would you be kind enough to give your views on what happens next as judging from your earlier posts I am sure you have looked at this in detail? (I did so in an earlier post a couple of days ago.)

I made my suggestion as a speedy way out of this impasse and yours appears to take a similar length of time.

Time indeed, that's just it, there is hardly any to undertake an election or another vote. Kept secret from all but the PM and trusted advisers, we now have a document which both May and the EU refuse to consider ammending published at the very last stages of the withdrawl process.

Given it is dislike by almost everybody it is unlikley to pass through parliament. The solution must be to call a snap election immediately after the vote. Labour will campaign on staying in the EU, the Conservatives on amending the current withdrawl agreement. If the Conservatives win, then it would be expedient to to request a deferal of article 50 for at least another 6 months to allow that process. If the EU refuse or changes cannot be agreed we leave without.

[Copperknickers II]

Theresa May may look vulnerable but actually she's being pretty smart about this - the only way a no confidence motion would be triggered is if it's thought there's a reasonable chance of winning it (you only need 48 letters to start the motion, but 48 votes won't be enough to actually oust her in a vote. It is coordinated, so that maybe 20-30 letters have been sent to intimidate the PM, but that number will not get over the 48 letter threshold until the rebel leaders such as Mogg have carefully gauged support and decided the timing is right). It's looking right now like May could have pulled a rabbit out of the hat - every hates her deal, but nobody has a better one. So there's really no reason for anyone to risk No Deal other than out of brinksmanship in the hope that the EU will suddenly cave and offer us a 'cake and eat it' deal.

That's not impossible. It's just very very irresponsible to try it, because it's not just a matter of 'who's the ballsiest negotiator', it's also a matter of the consequences for the EU of allowing the UK to leave and still get the benefits. That could easily lead to the collapse of the EU project, which would be worse even than No Deal from Brussels' perspective.

But of course there's still the matter of the parliamentary vote, which would require huge swathes of the Tory party to get behind their leader when they've spent months attacking her, as well as a few dozen Labour rebels. The arithmetic is very, very tight.

[mongrel]

A further delay in implementing Brexit will cost the UK around £10bn, which is ominous because there is little time to arrange a deal or a 2nd referendum. I guess the Brexit bus needs a respray.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ost-10bn-extra

[Daruwind]

Theresa May may look vulnerable but actually she's being pretty smart about this - the only way a no confidence motion would be triggered is if it's thought there's a reasonable chance of winning it (you only need 48 letters to start the motion, but 48 votes won't be enough to actually oust her in a vote. It is coordinated, so that maybe 20-30 letters have been sent to intimidate the PM, but that number will not get over the 48 letter threshold until the rebel leaders such as Mogg have carefully gauged support and decided the timing is right). It's looking right now like May could have pulled a rabbit out of the hat - every hates her deal, but nobody has a better one. So there's really no reason for anyone to risk No Deal other than out of brinksmanship in the hope that the EU will suddenly cave and offer us a 'cake and eat it' deal.

That's not impossible. It's just very very irresponsible to try it, because it's not just a matter of 'who's the ballsiest negotiator', it's also a matter of the consequences for the EU of allowing the UK to leave and still get the benefits. That could easily lead to the collapse of the EU project, which would be worse even than No Deal from Brussels' perspective.

But of course there's still the matter of the parliamentary vote, which would require huge swathes of the Tory party to get behind their leader when they've spent months attacking her, as well as a few dozen Labour rebels. The arithmetic is very, very tight.

so..

May´s deal - bad
hard brexit without deal - worse

Seems like two great options there. I´m not sure I would like such gamble with my state, future. I´m not sure I would have faith in such politics and current goverment. I would simply expect goverment to call off Brexit due to domestic problems and that they are working on rework for 2025/2030 at least. Like even GE are not sure to fix anything in such situation with half country support at best preparing long term serious changes is simply naive...

But i reckon that current EU situation is also dire. I would describe it as picture lower. If anything France/Germany team is losing long term big opposition player, which is lost for V4 countries and such. Plus Uk has better conditions than almost any other country in EU. Right now it just sound as if Britain is taking arrow/brexit into both knees..


(and don´t worry, we have here also so big problems in politics. Anybody notice Czech PM and his dotation problem in EU? His political suicide and kidnapping own son to cover the fraud? )

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

At least Chechz won't vote this obvious corrupt idiot Babis again.

A GE would be the best option to hear, what people really want.

[Daruwind]

At least Chechz won't vote this obvious corrupt idiot Babis again.

offtopic but

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

While Babis is Berlusconi type with lot problems, he is firmly pro EU while our president Mr. Zeman is openly pro russia/china (he was backing Putin in Novichok affair, he wants Rosatom to build our next Nuclear power plant, his advisor is now dissappeared china guy mr Ye ((https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/b...-republic.html Czech high five, we managed to lose a lot of china money DDD)) ...Babis´s goverment is backed by communist party (yeah, we were unable to make them illegal even eafter 40 years of russian communist occupation ) and is also backed by populist SPD which is like anti-immigrant Nazis, in case Babis lose, these three will have no pro EU counterpart as SPD,communists,Zeman are now anti EU and for leaving NATO -_- and embracing russia brothers forever.... Who cares about Uk at all..Zeman already demonstrated he is using Constitution in very creative way.

[Heathen Hammer]

So it looks like hard Brexit is the only option for UK. Soft Brexit could have happened if someone was in charge who wasn't interested in sabotaging the negotiations from the beginning, May being a perfect example of treasonous saboteur whose goal was to wheel a way towards another referendum. And then another one if Britons would vote leave again. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that UK needs a new political elite, which isn't as corrupt as inept as its current one.
Having said that, hard Brexit may not be such a bad outcome - EU itself isn't exactly showing much future, as more countries within it actively drift away from course Merkel and Macron are taking. Once French and German governments are replaced with a bit more sane ones, there can be more talk about another pan-European trade-agreement. I doubt it would even be called EU, I'm pretty sure everyone would just start puking in their mouth when they see that ugly EU flag.

[mongrel]

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but May is on record as being dead set against a second referendum.

The 'People's vote ' as it is called nowadays is a cross-party grassroots initiative, led by Open Britain, the European Movement UK, Britain for Europe, Scientists for EU, Healthier In, Our Future Our Choice, For Our Future’s Sake, Wales For Europe & InFacts.

So more facts less bs please, I would like the quality of discussion, whichever side it may fall, to be maintained.

Here's an interesting fact - Before staying out of the euro, the UK commissioned 23 studies. Before arranging to leave the EU, we didn’t commission a single one

[Copperknickers II]

I´m not sure I would like such gamble with my state, future. I´m not sure I would have faith in such politics and current goverment. I would simply expect goverment to call off Brexit due to domestic problems

They can't 'call off' Brexit, considering a majority of Brits voted for it. If they did, we might well end up with UKIP winning the next general election in the worst case scenario. If you think the current state of affairs is a gamble then how about a nuclear armed state falling into the hands of a xenophobic Right wing party linked to the Russians?

But i reckon that current EU situation is also dire. I would describe it as picture lower. If anything France/Germany team is losing long term big opposition player, which is lost for V4 countries and such.

The EU is going through a bit of a rough patch but I think it will survive, albeit maybe in a slightly different form with less of the wannabe United States of Europe attitude from Brussels.

Plus Uk has better conditions than almost any other country in EU.

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'better conditions', but the UK is in no way better than almost any other country in the EU. It's really not a good place to live, it probably has among the worst living standards of any country in the first world right now. The UN has literally released a report condemning our government for endemic human rights abuses,* that's how bad it is. I recently left the country and I don't intend on going back for the forseeable future.

*Source: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issu..._16Nov2018.pdf

[Daruwind]

They can't 'call off' Brexit, considering a majority of Brits voted for it. If they did, we might well end up with UKIP winning the next general election in the worst case scenario. If you think the current state of affairs is a gamble then how about a nuclear armed state falling into the hands of a xenophobic Right wing party linked to the Russians?

Except current majority could be 2% for Remain while next week it could be again 2% for Leave while next month it will be again 2% majority for Remain...See the problem? The result of the vote is very weak mandate to build long term strategy upon when you are no longer sure to actually hold the majority. And building it upon old majority? There is nothing older than eysterday news.. results. It is politics... That´s all. I´m not saying Brexit didn´t win. It won, just with very tight majority.

Next GE winner can easily claim to have newer mandate of citizens, new majority to do whatever. Why not? It is the same argument as people voting for Leave didn´t specify if Soft/Hard Brexit is okay. Are Soft voters actually okey with Hard Brexit or prefer Remain to Hard Brexit? People were voting for something abstract...But again. It is UK´s internal fight. :-)

I´m in Czech Rep. we had 40 years under Russian occupation. We know a few things about them. But today there is more players with nuclear weaponry worldwide and even in times of Stalin the big war never came. There are no winners except martyrs in nuclear war...Putin is bully but not madman.

Not exactly sure what you mean by 'better conditions', but the UK is in no way better than almost any other country in the EU.

I had always the feeling that UK diplomats were able to negotiate very good terms for UK in general concerning EU membership. Lot exceptions, opt-outs. I don´t mean it in any negative way just that UK had skillful diplomats and negotiators. And that in case you lose the benefits and exceptions that you might be unable to re-negotiate them again in similar proportions. How is UK doing internally, that´s not EU problem (mostly), again domestic UK problem..

[Copperknickers II]

Except current majority could be 2% for Remain while next week it could be again 2% for Leave while next month it will be again 2% majority for Remain...See the problem?

Until such a time as a new referendum is held, the public mandate is a 2% majority for Leave. People may be changing their opinions, but until they have written down their opinion on a piece of paper then nothing has changed. It's meaningless to say that 'opinion polls say 53% of people are now against Brexit', everyone knows how unreliable opinion polls are. And it's not necessarily the opinion polls that are wrong, because in many cases the very act of voting in a referendum may change someone's opinion.

It is the same argument as people voting for Leave didn´t specify if Soft/Hard Brexit is okay. Are Soft voters actually okey with Hard Brexit or prefer Remain to Hard Brexit? People were voting for something abstract...

In the next referendum, if there is one, people will have an actual deal to vote on, so it won't be so abstract.

I´m in Czech Rep. we had 40 years under Russian occupation. We know a few things about them. But today there is more players with nuclear weaponry worldwide and even in times of Stalin the big war never came. There are no winners except martyrs in nuclear war...Putin is bully but not madman.

You do know a few things about them. One of those things is that they don't need to start a nuclear war to exert massive influence for the worse on a country that falls under their power. The UK (though it may not seem like it presently) is one of the world's foremost military and political great powers. If our resources and influence were to be handed over to the Russians that would be enough to seriously tip the balance against the Western world order.

I had always the feeling that UK diplomats were able to negotiate very good terms for UK in general concerning EU membership. Lot exceptions, opt-outs. I don´t mean it in any negative way just that UK had skillful diplomats and negotiators. And that in case you lose the benefits and exceptions that you might be unable to re-negotiate them again in similar proportions. How is UK doing internally, that´s not EU problem (mostly), again domestic UK problem..

And it's not my problem either anymore. You're actually closer to the UK than I am. But yeah, people in the UK were not happy about EU membership so the 'benefits' were irrelevant to them compared to the costs. I don't particularly like the EU and I do think that even with benefits we had in comparison to other countries there were still serious problems. If Brexit does somehow manage to fix them then it will be a good thing. I can't see that happening, though, without creating a serious fall in living standards and a Tory power grab. Not really worth it, considering the direction the EU is already heading in, with the V4 countries and Italy providing strong opposition to authoritarian rule from Brussels.

[95thrifleman]

I think the EU's stupidity here has guarantee a hard brexit, they where never going to give us a deal that didn't punish us or lock us into eu rules.

Lib Dems will vote against the deal, labour will vote against it as will dup and snp and neither the leave or remain rebels in the tory party will vote for it. The deal will be rejected and the eu will not renegotiate so it's hard bexit by default.

[Elmetiacos]

They can't 'call off' Brexit, considering a majority of Brits voted for it. If they did, we might well end up with UKIP winning the next general election in the worst case scenario. If you think the current state of affairs is a gamble then how about a nuclear armed state falling into the hands of a xenophobic Right wing party linked to the Russians?

UKIP have disappeared up their own backsides; they are averaging about 5% in opinion polls now, as they slide inevitably into being just another bunch of obvious neo-Nazis. Farage thinks he can make more money working for Trump in the US.

[caratacus]

UKIP have disappeared up their own backsides; they are averaging about 5% in opinion polls now, as they slide inevitably into being just another bunch of obvious neo-Nazis. Farage thinks he can make more money working for Trump in the US.

Whatever the state of Ukip, nobody can discount the share of votes they received in the main or local elections. The party drew support from a diverse base, as would be expected of a party based on the single issue of EU withdrawl, some of which have been detrimental to its profile. I also would discount some deliberate infiltration for that purpose or to change its character entirely. The present debate concerning Tommy Robinson membership is a case in point.

Without UKIP there would have been no referendum and the issue would have been ignored by British polticians, as it has for the past 40 years.

[Elmetiacos]

Whatever the state of Ukip, nobody can discount the share of votes they received in the main or local elections. The party drew support from a diverse base, as would be expected of a party based on the single issue of EU withdrawl, some of which have been detrimental to its profile. I also would discount some deliberate infiltration for that purpose or to change its character entirely. The present debate concerning Tommy Robinson membership is a case in point.

Having a diverse base is perversely a bad thing in British politics because of the first past the post system. The courting of "Tommy Robinson" is by the latest leader, Gerard Batten, who's been in the party since Alan Skedd was in charge and not by some fringe group of entrists. He is taking the party towards even more of a far right nationalist position.

[Copperknickers II]

UKIP have disappeared up their own backsides; they are averaging about 5% in opinion polls now

Because they were a single issue party who's single issue was achieved, or so they thought. If it turns out Brexit is essentially not happening then get ready to see the meteoric rise of either UKIP or another similar party.

[Aexodus]

Because they were a single issue party who's single issue was achieved, or so they thought. If it turns out Brexit is essentially not happening then get ready to see the meteoric rise of either UKIP or another similar party.

And just being real, if most of the people opposed to brexit didn’t like Farage’s UKIP, they probably won’t be fans of Gerard Batten.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

An RT article, but originally in the Sunday Times earlier (Its their story) and with a lot of reaction on 'social media'

https://www.rt.com/uk/444391-tories-...crash-economy/

Theresa May’s government are planning to “engineer a financial crash” if parliament fails to back their Brexit deal – in an attempt to frighten MPs into voting it through at a second vote, claims a source close to the PM’s aides.

A source, who has discussed the issue with May’s officials, has told the paper that No 10 has come up with a dark plan to twist the arms of MPs to force through their Brexit deal.
“No 10’s plan is to encourage a crash in financial markets after losing a first vote in the hope this stampedes MPs into voting for it second time,” the source claims.

I would question what source, it might be a leave voting cabinet member, or someone nearby who is not an MP. Also i would question the level of specific control that the UK government can exert over financial markets (I would assume it would have to be some obvious peddling to finance to destroy confidence- however as has been mentioned before the link in Britain between finance and the parliamentary parties is particularly strong, with connections being incredibly firm, so i suppose a few MP supporters (many of whom on hedge fund boards and the like as advisers or managers) willing to go along would be able to do it rather subtly potentially. But who knows- its all about confidence in the end.

Regardless, if true this is A) incredibly desperate and undemocratic (though some on Twitter are arguing that it would be a 'natural' market downturn if May's 'compromise' deal is down voted the first time) being akin to blackmail, and B) shows that this Conservative government being prepared to punish its citizens directly for its political gain and survival, is if true- totally unfit for office. We've already had the UN report point out that the way austerity has been implemented is a top-down social experiment, not an economic policy. This if there is an ounce of truth in the Conservative government planning an active effort to damage the countries financial markets is the nail in the coffin for the now in tatters 'Country in safe hands' bs that was peddled formally.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't believe that.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I don't believe that.

I'm leaning towards disbelief- not however on account of the government not wanting to do that, but more that i don't believe they can exert the required influence for such an event AND keep it subtle enough for it to not come back and bit them on the arse. This in itself is a problem though, as you probably know mate, five years ago or so here i would have disbelieved this on the grounds that genuinely a British Government would never do such a thing to its own people. However, the past few years of incredibly secretive and underhand politics from the May government bending over backwards for the ERG side of the Conservative party, particularly around brexit (hidden hand, avoiding scrutiny etc) coupled with the growing agreement that austerity at best being an incompetently administered ideological-led policy and at worst being an ideologically charged way of undermining traditional public structures in favour of creating a 'small state' that otherwise would have been electorally nonviable, has rather shattered my trust in the British government. More than that though, the day to running- such as hiding school cuts figures from the public, messing up with the Grenfell policy response, lying about funding figures and essentially taking 'spin' to a whole new level- its sort of killed it for me. Though i get this is a desperate and tired minority government so i can somewhat understand the hash they've made. Though it might also just be the whole getting older, getting more cynical case . Regardless though, even i can't simply say 'i don't believe it, because they wouldn't do it'

Its now 'i don't believe it, because i don't believe they have that much power'.

Beyond my rambling though Its an interesting move from whoever did leak this- essentially it means that May's Government if this story is taken up as it seems to have on Social media and the like, will be unable to as iirc argued before distance themselves politically from the economic consequences as we've arguably seen attempts prior to this (Setting up the 'enemies of the people' or an 'unfair' EU)- as there is i think for the first time in the 'mainstream' media a direct linking of such a connection (however wrongly) to the government. I know its impossible, but i would really like to see more evidence on the source- it might be silly, but i can see its not referenced as a 'senior source' which usually can mean direct contact in the executive process at conception (going from a journalism PGS comments over drinks...though probably a large degree of showing off at work from that context!).