Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

Labour are playing a very dangerous game by pushing for an election when a) they are largely responsible for thwarting Brexit and b) they still cannot say whether they are in favour of remaining inside or leaving the EU! A Labour MP on BBC Breakfast News this morning was just asked whether Labour would fight a General Election on the basis of 'Remain' or 'Leave' and she said that she couldn't say either way... seriously...

Even after one considers the number of constituencies that may have changed from Leave to Remain since the referendum, that still leaves some 288 seats in favour of leaving the EU - down from 406 in the original referendum. Note, however, that this figure is based on an analysis that may or may not reflect what would happen in the event of another vote or a General Election fought on the basis of the referendum.

A Parliamentary majority requires 326 seats, though the current government got only 317 seats and (infamously) are propped up by 10 DUP MPs. Labour, on the other hand, got 262 seats. But, of those seats, ~160 voted to Leave. Even after taking into consideration a possible 30% drop in support for Leave, that still leaves some 114 Labour seats in favour of a policy that Labour themselves cannot commit to. It also leaves over 170 Tory seats vulnerable to protest votes for their abject failure to deliver Brexit of any type.

The Tories are likely to be destroyed by Brexit, but Labour could also be utterly decimated at the polls too. UKIP and/or Nigel Farage's 'Brexit' party could easily win a large number of seats - hopefully nothing like the 288 Leave supporting seats, but I reckon it could be easily over 100... maybe considerably more. It's impossible to say, but I reckon that Labour and Tory support will both be seriously damaged. Worse still is the prospect that Brexit supporting parties such as UKIP and the Brexit party could easily hold the balance of power in Parliament for years to come.

Think it's a bit of a leap to assume UKIP will gain anything substantial, I think it's more likely for Labour and the Tories to have a strong turn-out simply based on historic voting, but the split being more a more even three way split with the Lib-Dems, assuming they remember to campaign...

Though I guess that depends on who actually is leading both the Tories and the Labour parties come a GE as I'm not sure Corbyn can win anything and I'm pretty sure even his most crazed supporters know that

Cool.

hmmm

Edit;
The biggest political event in my life-time that has a good chance of deciding the countries fate for better or worse for generations, one side of the debate/vote was found to have broken the law, which they now agree with... and all you can think is to demand I now go on about the other side?
If one side broke the law and they admit to it, why does it matter what the other side did? The result isn't valid, if a team cheats to win an F1 race, they get caught and admit to it, they don't get to keep the race win and the championship points... yet when it comes to deciding the future of the country they get to keep the win?

And yet you're more concerned with what the other guys did?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Or doesn't that count because it's pro EU?

Was it found to be illegal?

 

[UKMikey]

Was it found to be illegal?

Stronger In Europe were already investigated by the Electoral Commission and fined. Nothing close to the £67,000 fee the Leave campaign is facing though as I understand it.

 

[baldgye]

Stronger In Europe were already investigated by the Electoral Commission and fined. Nothing close to the £67,000 fee the Leave campaign is facing though as I understand it.

Indeed, though it seems that £18k was against the LibDems, rather than Stronger in Europe (that became the main Remain party)?

Electoral commission fines Remain campaigners £19,000

Remain campaigners have been fined £19,000 for failing to declare their spending properly during the EU referendum campaign.
The Liberal Democrats were fined £18,000 by the Electoral Commission, near the legal maximum fine of £20,000, mainly for “failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments”. “Where the rules are not followed, transparency is lost which is not in the public interest or as parliament intended,” said Bob Posner, the Commission’s legal counsel.
Meanwhile, the official Remain campaign, then known as Britain Stronger in Europe, now Open Britain, has paid a £1,250 fine imposed for not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.
The Electoral Commission, Britain’s electoral watchdog, is still undertaking high-profile investigations into the official Leave campaign, Vote Leave, and another major Brexit group, Leave.EU and its founder Arron Banks.

https://www.ft.com/content/2f91721d-9512-3c2a-9e0f-4453897183c8

 

[Tired Tyres]

Think it's a bit of a leap to assume UKIP will gain anything substantial, I think it's more likely for Labour and the Tories to have a strong turn-out simply based on historic voting, but the split being more a more even three way split with the Lib-Dems, assuming they remember to campaign...

Though I guess that depends on who actually is leading both the Tories and the Labour parties come a GE as I'm not sure Corbyn can win anything and I'm pretty sure even his most crazed supporters know that


hmmm

Edit;
The biggest political event in my life-time that has a good chance of deciding the countries fate for better or worse for generations, one side of the debate/vote was found to have broken the law, which they now agree with... and all you can think is to demand I now go on about the other side?
If one side broke the law and they admit to it, why does it matter what the other side did? The result isn't valid, if a team cheats to win an F1 race, they get caught and admit to it, they don't get to keep the race win and the championship points... yet when it comes to deciding the future of the country they get to keep the win?

And yet you're more concerned with what the other guys did?

No. It's just that you make such a big deal out of this and have done for such a long time verses the massively bigger amount spent by the little thing nobody has ever taken any notice of called the Government. I find it amusing.

 

[baldgye]

No. It's just that you make such a big deal out of this and have done for such a long time verses the massively bigger amount spent by the little thing nobody has ever taken any notice of called the Government. I find it amusing.

I make a big deal about Leave being found guilty of election fraud, because it is a big deal.
If you want to talk values, if that's important then Leave have been fined over £60,000 for illegal actives and Remain have been fined just over £1,000.

To be clear: IF ONE OR BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY OF ELECTION FRAUD WHY THE **** DOES ANYONE HAVE TO RESPECT THE RESULT?!

 

[MatskiMonk]

No. It's just that you make such a big deal out of this and have done for such a long time verses the massively bigger amount spent by the little thing nobody has ever taken any notice of called the Government. I find it amusing.

Illegal campaigning ended with a law passing in its favour... the very foundation of the future "Independent Britain"... gee, I'm glad we got rid of them EU cronies.

 

[TenEightyOne]

the massively bigger amount spent by the little thing nobody has ever taken any notice of called the Government

Aside from the sarcastic patronising tone of that post you seem to be forgetting that it was the Government's job to publish information about the potential effects of leaving the EU, and that's exactly what they did. They were separate from the campaign parties as demonstrated by the legal judgements.

Looking back at the leaflet now it seems naive in some respects but much of what was warned about has indeed come to pass.

 

[Touring Mars]

Think it's a bit of a leap to assume UKIP will gain anything substantial

In a hung parliament, any seats is a substantial gain for a party who have only ever had one (temporary) MP... the DUP only have 10 MPs and yet they are responsible for delivering us the Theresa May era.

I reckon UKIP and Farage's Brexit party would win at least 10 seats in a General Election if/when Brexit is botched, but I won't be surprised if that is a big underestimate.

I would not underestimate for a moment the level of anger and frustration at the failure of both main political parties to deliver Brexit. Hopefully that will also translate into substantial gains (e.g. 10-50 new seats) for the Lib Dems as well, but I fear that they will not pick up much in the way of protest votes that UKIP and Farage will.

The referendum was, if nothing else, an expression of frustration and anger at the state of the UK and a protest vote against the Establishment. All main political parties apart from UKIP campaigned to Remain in the EU, and yet 17.4 million people voted for us to Leave.... incidentally, that is more people than voted for the Conservatives, the DUP, the SNP and the Lib Dems put together in the last General Election (who won 374 seats between them)...

 

[andrea]

Man, those Pro-Brexit protests have got more people than I thought. Yikes.

 

[baldgye]

The referendum was, if nothing else, an expression of frustration and anger at the state of the UK and a protest vote against the Establishment.

What I would say, however, is that if I had decided to vote Leave, I'd be extremely angry at anyone who tried to explain away my vote as if I was too stupid to have weighed up all the issues, claims and counter-claims for myself.

I don’t disagree that much with what your saying, though I don’t think the pro-Brexit anger is as large as your suggesting.
That said I assumed half the electorate wouldn’t vote to ruin the country...

 

[UKMikey]

I don’t disagree that much with what your saying, though I don’t think the pro-Brexit anger is as large as your suggesting.
That said I assumed half the electorate wouldn’t vote to ruin the country...

They'll find someone else to pin the blame on once it all goes wrong. One of the letters in Metro the other week blamed Remainers for the Brexit shambles by not accepting the election result. Presumably they should be lying down and letting Leavers railroad everything they want through Parliament instead.

 

[Dotini]

To be clear: IF ONE OR BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY OF ELECTION FRAUD WHY THE **** DOES ANYONE HAVE TO RESPECT THE RESULT?!

If you were in the jungle, would you respect the law of the jungle?

In other places, you have a choice of respecting the law, or defying it with levels of vigor varying from polite protest to armed insurrection.

 

[MatskiMonk]

If you were in the jungle, would you respect the law of the jungle?

In other places, you have a choice of respecting the law, or defying it with levels of vigor varying from polite protest to armed insurrection.

Both these examples are, however, useless. We are not in a jungle, and our "democracy" has been relatively peaceful in most peoples living memory. A more apt supposition is simply, that illegal campaigning is from now on acceptable and advisable for a win.

 

[baldgye]

The normalisation of the extreme right isn’t happening by chance.

 

[Dotini]

illegal campaigning is from now on acceptable and advisable for a win.

At last, the firm and clear realization that the ends justify the means. Congratulations, the way out of your mess is now much easier.

Hint: The strongest and best organized who act quickly and decisively will carry the day.

 

[baldgye]

At last, the firm and clear realization that the ends justify the means.

Incorrect

 

[Touring Mars]

A key vote tonight will be on an Edinburgh MP's proposed motion. Joanna Cherry (SNP, Edinburgh South West) is proposing a motion that would force the government to revoke Article 50 if no other option is agreed upon, including No Deal, as a means of avoiding an accidental No Deal. Critically, her motion includes triggering an 'inquiry' into the possibility of a future deal with the EU (basically allowing the UK to negotiate Brexit again, but outwith the confines of the Article 50 timescale) and leaving the prospect of a second referendum open (to allow for the possible re-triggering of Article 50 should a Commons majority on a new Brexit deal be found).

Labour are supporting the motion and may even whip to support it. The Independent Group will also likely support it, and quite a few Tories are also behind it already. But, even Hard Brexiteers might see it as a way of escaping the worst outcome of all for them - Soft Brexit. Make no mistake - Soft Brexit is considerably, almost infinitely, worse than No Brexit for a Hard Brexiteer, and hence I expect Joanna Cherry's motion to be voted in favour of tonight (even if the Cabinet/Government abstain), and brought to a 'real' vote quickly thereafter.

 

[Tired Tyres]

A key vote tonight will be on an Edinburgh MP's proposed motion. Joanna Cherry (SNP, Edinburgh South West) is proposing a motion that would force the government to revoke Article 50 if no other option is agreed upon, including No Deal, as a means of avoiding an accidental No Deal. Critically, her motion includes triggering an 'inquiry' into the possibility of a future deal with the EU (basically allowing the UK to negotiate Brexit again, but outwith the confines of the Article 50 timescale) and leaving the prospect of a second referendum open (to allow for the possible re-triggering of Article 50 should a Commons majority on a new Brexit deal be found).

Labour are supporting the motion and may even whip to support it. The Independent Group will also likely support it, and quite a few Tories are also behind it already. But, even Hard Brexiteers might see it as a way of escaping the worst outcome of all for them - Soft Brexit. Make no mistake - Soft Brexit is considerably, almost infinitely, worse than No Brexit for a Hard Brexiteer, and hence I expect Joanna Cherry's motion to be voted in favour of tonight (even if the Cabinet/Government abstain), and brought to a 'real' vote quickly thereafter.

Any form of soft Brexit is not a Brexit at all. Without the capacity to go after other trade deals there is literally no point to it at all economically.

 

[Touring Mars]

Any form of soft Brexit is not a Brexit at all. Without the capacity to go after other trade deals there is literally no point to it at all economically.

There is no point to it at all, period.

Ironically, it is so pointless that even Hard Brexiteers would rather see No Brexit than Soft Brexit.

No Brexit is not the opposite of Hard Brexit - Soft Brexit is.

I personally like Joanna Cherry's motion because it keeps options open while also avoiding two outcomes that I would prefer not to see.

I would not like to see a No Deal Brexit - but I don't believe for a minute that it would be as bad as some people believe it would be... I would much prefer a good deal, but a good deal is very unlikely because the EU have scuppered it from day one. No Deal would no doubt be the most painful option in the short term, but I reckon it would inevitably end up with compromises that would mean no irreparable damage to either the UK or the EU.

But, Soft Brexit is an unmitigated disaster for the UK - and that is coming from a Remain voter. I also think it would be legally and constitutionally challenged for years to come, not to mention completely untenable - and politically explosive. Ironically, Soft Brexit could well turn out to be the biggest misnomer imaginable... it ain't Brexit, and will not be 'soft' on anyone.

-

edit: Labour will not be voting in favour of Joanna Cherry's amendment tonight...

I'm quite staggered by that.

 

[Liquid]

There was a naked protest in the Commons' gallery this evening but it turns out that there were still more arseholes sat on the benches below.

 

[mustafur]

Do Labour have a purpose at this point, is there anything they are in favour of.

 

[Tired Tyres]

There is no point to it at all, period.

Ironically, it is so pointless that even Hard Brexiteers would rather see No Brexit than Soft Brexit.

No Brexit is not the opposite of Hard Brexit - Soft Brexit is.

I personally like Joanna Cherry's motion because it keeps options open while also avoiding two outcomes that I would prefer not to see.

I would not like to see a No Deal Brexit - but I don't believe for a minute that it would be as bad as some people believe it would be... I would much prefer a good deal, but a good deal is very unlikely because the EU have scuppered it from day one. No Deal would no doubt be the most painful option in the short term, but I reckon it would inevitably end up with compromises that would mean no irreparable damage to either the UK or the EU.

But, Soft Brexit is an unmitigated disaster for the UK - and that is coming from a Remain voter. I also think it would be legally and constitutionally challenged for years to come, not to mention completely untenable - and politically explosive. Ironically, Soft Brexit could well turn out to be the biggest misnomer imaginable... it ain't Brexit, and will not be 'soft' on anyone.

-

edit: Labour will not be voting in favour of Joanna Cherry's amendment tonight...

I'm quite staggered by that.

Labour shouldn't be voting for anything. The MPs should be voting. The conservatives shouldn't be voting for anything. The MPs should be voting. It's supposed to be to find out what parliament wants. Instead if the whips are out then it's finding out what the party's want.

 

[Touring Mars]

Indicative votes results:

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

 

[Tired Tyres]

Well that was predictable.

 

[Robin]

The house wanted the power to take charge of the process and they have managed to do absolutely nothing with it. Even the EU by now probably wants us to just leave on the 12th (like we are currently legally going to do anyway). It will be the kindest thing for both sides because then businesses and people on both sides know where they stand and things can move on, then we can build a post Brexit deal.

 

[Liquid]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

Did someone bring Paisley back?

 

[PzR Slim]

The house wanted the power to take charge of the process and they have managed to do absolutely nothing with it. Even the EU by now probably wants us to just leave on the 12th (like we are currently legally going to do anyway). It will be the kindest thing for both sides because then businesses and people on both sides know where they stand and things can move on, then we can build a post Brexit deal.

Except that the vast majority of people understand just how damaging no deal would be for the UK.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It will be the kindest thing for both sides because then businesses and people on both sides know where they stand and things can move on,

Are you genuinely saying that you think No Deal is best for your business?

 

[Robin]

Are you genuinely saying that you think No Deal is best for your business?

There are businesses that deal with countries other than the EU.