UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Angel of Death]

That didn't force May to push the button. She still could have just taken the time to get to a comprehensive withdrawal strategy beforehand, possibly using a general election to try and help her get rid of any obstacles.

I think it's because of the fact that she actually knows she's Brexit's sacrificial lamb, that she's been phoning it in, not harboring any ambition beyond having become Prime Minister. She's supposed to be like the portrait of Dorian Gray, but for the Tories. The result is this omnishambles.

As for Corbyn, he's not Labour, especially since, as it turns out, triggering Article 50 required parliamentary approval.

[Diouf]

At the risk of repeating myself, I still don't understand why Theresa May triggered Article 50 before calling a general election purely from a politically strategically point of view. Leave might have won with only a slim majority, but, at the time, many Remainers were also in favor of at least respecting the referendum result. The Tories could have campaigned against Labour's unclear position, conveying the idea they might possibly not follow through with Brexit themselves.

I mean wasn't that the same they tried to campaign on in 2017? I don't think the scenario would have been much different. Corbyn would say that Labour respects the result and would carry through a Brexit that is good for workers. It wasn't enough for the most ardent brexiteers, but enough to calm many so they could still vote for Labour.

However, that campaign strategy might actually work a bit better now. There are more MPs in Labour talking about a second vote etc, so probably this time Labour would have a harder time in building a coalition that keeps both remainers and enough brexiteers on board. Corbyn would perhaps again have to be quite brexity, and then hope that him being the main opposition to May will mean young remainers will still vote for him over Lib Dems/Greens/not voting.

So strategically, I think it probably makes sense for the Conservatives to take another general election before Brexit Day. Being able to fight an election on being the Leave side vs. Labour Remain is probably the best option in the horizon. If Brexit is fairly settled by March 19 next year, other issues like healthcare and education should start to play a bigger role again, and Tories would probably lose if these are the topics after a decade of austerity and cuts. It is of course risky to hold a new election so quickly, when you could potentially govern until 2022 otherwise, but it could give them the muchwanted majority. And perhaps the best option for May to stay as PM? The only way to redeem her horrible election result in 2017, would be to get a win in a new election.

[EPG]

That didn't force May to push the button. She still could have just taken the time to get to a comprehensive withdrawal strategy beforehand, possibly using a general election to try and help her get rid of any obstacles.

What different strategy could she have come to? There is a famous PowerPoint slide presented by Michel Barnier, demonstrating that almost every deal agreed between the EU and a partner would fail with the UK because it breaches a UK red line.

[Former President tack50]

That didn't force May to push the button. She still could have just taken the time to get to a comprehensive withdrawal strategy beforehand, possibly using a general election to try and help her get rid of any obstacles.

What different strategy could she have come to? There is a famous PowerPoint slide presented by Michel Barnier, demonstrating that almost every deal agreed between the EU and a partner would fail with the UK because it breaches a UK red line.

Well, the Canada model (ie a standard trade deal) would work. Except for Northern Ireland of course. I wonder, would a hard border there be that disturbing?

What was the situation pre-Good Friday Agreement? Or pre-1973? Has the border really been open all the time since Ireland became independent?

[cp]

Well, the Canada model (ie a standard trade deal) would work. Except for Northern Ireland of course. I wonder, would a hard border there be that disturbing?

What was the situation pre-Good Friday Agreement? Or pre-1973? Has the border really been open all the time since Ireland became independent?

Pre-GFA the border was still policed by armed guards and little else (not quite the same, but think Canada/USA today). Pre-1993 there were customs checks in addition to armed guards (think Finland/Russia today). The latter was dismantled after the ROI and UK joined the Single Market, but the former did not disappear until 2005, per the GFA.

If it came to it, both sides would try to keep a 'hard border' as light as possible, but it would still be unacceptably disturbing no matter what. The GFA was based on a very carefully constructed legal and political ambiguity. Citizens of the UK in NI could claim Irish or UK citizenship freely with no objection from either country and no ability of either country to refuse to recognize that choice. Put in practice, that means that everyone in NI, regardless of citizenship, has the right to treat the UK and ROI as if either was their 'home' country, i.e. to be able to work, move, travel, and do business in all parts of that country without any restriction.

The reason this was so important was that the conflict in NI (vastly oversimplified) was between absolutists on either side who wanted NI to be entirely Irish or entirely British. By granting the political and legal space for both Irish nationalists and British unionists to claim that they were, in practice, getting what they wanted (i.e. treatment of NI and its citizens as being part of one country or the other), the GFA gave both sides enough face to agree to stop killing each other.

The clincher, and the reason this has become the flashpoint of the Brexit debate, is that this level of legal ambiguity between two sovereign countries is only possible if you have a mechanism for sharing sovereignty in a very broad and systematic way. The Single Market and Customs Union do this; there is no other model for it anywhere else in the world.

The GFA was a masterful piece of international diplomacy that ended decades, arguably centuries, of sectarian violence that cost tens of thousands of lives ... and the Brexiters want to throw it all away so they can stick it to the EU.

[cp]

1) An early General Election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government".
The House would have to pass the second resolution within fourteen days of the first.

2) So Chequers (or whatever the final deal looks like) is killed off by Parliament.
A handful of Tory MPs (or DUP) would have to join Lab, LD, SNP, PC and Indies and vote that they have *NO CONFIDENCE* in the Tory Govt.  
I don’t see that happening because Tories like power.

3) And triggering an early General Election risks the Tories falling out of power - voluntarily - 4 years before they have too.
And so long as Tory MPs prefer having a Tory PM and the DUP still support them...they stay in power.

4) More likely is that voting down a deal would lead to the PMs resignation but so long as any new Tory leader can command the confidence of the House of Commons, they are under no obligation - nor is their a method of compulsion - to hold a General Election.

5) Finally - the House could vote to dissolve itself on a tabled motion ‘That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.’

This would require 430 MPs to vote for it and I can’t see 110 Tories breaking rank to do that if their whip is to vote against.

Sorry for the double post but you've brought up some excellent points, Audrey.

I agree it would be unlikely to see 110 Tories break ranks and vote as part of a 2/3 majority for an early dissolution of the House; it is just as unlikely that 12-ish Tories would vote against their own government in a confidence motion.

However, that still leaves a third option: the Tories vote themselves for an early election, as they did in April 2017. It sounds outlandish, but in a situation where the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU has been voted down by the House, the EU has called the UK's bluff on 'No Deal', and the Tory hardliners refuse or are unable to replace May, a general election is sort of the only option left.

https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/1040687522655948801

1) Scenario 1) Labour campaign against the deal in the referendum. Deal falls and we leave the EU with NO DEAL as leaving date is enshrined into UK law as 29th March 2019.

2) Scenario 2) People’s vote is a choice of accept deal or stay in EU. Labour campaigns to stay in the EU, proving the Tory charge all along that Labour doesn’t accept the outcome of the referendum AND reneging on our manifesto commitment to accept the referendum result.

3) Either way, the relationship with our heartland LEAVE voting areas is at rock bottom and we will have achieved nothing in the last two years that will have addressed the reasons why our communities voted LEAVE in the first place.

4) And then - having allowed ourselves to be boxed off by the Tories as ‘Brexit betrayers’, we will go back to marginal seats in the Midlands and say ‘trust us’ to a group of voters who will have likely voted to LEAVE for a second time...

5) Labour should have spent the last two years offering genuinely radical solutions to the social and domestic issues which drove Brexit - but we fell into the trap of arguing over process and parliamentary procedure with the Tories - and on their timetable.

^^ from Labour MP for stoke-on-trent central, with a No Deal Brexit becoming ever more likely a second referendum looks increasing likely, however it won't be so easy to pass a legislation for a second referendum in the house of commons, there will be huge pressure on Tories representing Remain areas and Labour MPs representing Leave areas,

I think this is exactly why Corbyn has been so cagey about calls for a 2nd referendum. He doesn't want to commit himself to a vote that would expose Labour divisions as badly as Tory ones. A general election wouldn't do that, if only because it would allow Corbyn to change the subject every once in a while. Also, with Labour not currently in power there is less onus on them to articulate specific detailed plans for how to 'do Brexit', meanwhile the Tories tear themselves apart as they try to accomplish the impossible. It's kind of a win-win for Labour in that sense.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would assume the logical thing for Labour to do is offer up whatever deal is negotiated as a referendum, and if it fails, there is no Brexit.

[DavidB.]

This government is criminally incompetent and reckless. First the disastrous Brexit negotiations, and now the risk that total madman Corbyn comes to power. Is there anything May has done that didn't turn into sh**t?

[EPG]

Henry Newman should blame May, not the EU, for that. She is the person who agreed backstop. Of course, he probably does. This is why it's the pro-Canada deal Leavers, not the Remainers, who are still her main enemy.

Good Newsnight video.

Anyone want to bet on how a "Theresa May versus no deal" vote would go? 40-50% majority for no deal?

[EPG]

Just in case it is not clear: The problem with Canada type free trade deals is that as long as there's no EU - USA trade deal (say), there needs to be a barrier between the USA and the EU (e.g. the south of Ireland) to keep out unwanted goods like cheap chlorinated chicken.
Put the barrier on the Irish border and you breach the UK-EU agreed backstop.
Put it in the Irish sea and it's politically unacceptable to the large unionist minority in NI, and many other UK unionists (even though some small checks already exist there).
Put the barrier around the UK and they have joined the Customs Union without compensating the EU for this privilege (bad for EU) and without freedom of trade with other countries to replace the EU (bad for UK).

Maybe we could have a poll about what readers would choose

[Intell]

I mean the labour party is doing remarkably well with it's working-class voters compared to other center-left parties in Europe.

While the swings against the labour party in working-class areas such as Walsall north is disheartening we need to look at this with context. Even in such a brexit and immigration-focused election (or was meant to be) in 2017, the labour party still held strong amongst it's working-class base (though less so than before).

http://www.statsmapsnpix.com/2017/06/general-election-2017-some-maps-and-data.html

[EPG]

Ok, but it's fair to say most of those losses go hand-in-hand with gains for working-class and radical-graduate parties on the same side of the spectrum. The UK is a special case electoral system where a working-class plus radical-graduate party would not win seats reliably. The Conservatives are sufficiently popular to at least challenge in most working-class areas, at least outside core cities, and Labour as it stands is already a party that usually isn't close to forming governments.

[Angel of Death]

I don't see how another referendum is feasible at this point, because the question will be what options are going to be on the ballot and if there are more than two, then you open the whole can of worms of what electoral system to use for it. Using a non-Condorcet system like AV/IRV could easily squeeze out a compromise option (e.g. a deal versus no-deal versus remain). It's a recipe for disaster.

[Silent Hunter]

Well, the Canada model (ie a standard trade deal) would work. Except for Northern Ireland of course. I wonder, would a hard border there be that disturbing?

What was the situation pre-Good Friday Agreement? Or pre-1973? Has the border really been open all the time since Ireland became independent?

Pre-GFA the border was still policed by armed guards and little else (not quite the same, but think Canada/USA today). Pre-1993 there were customs checks in addition to armed guards (think Finland/Russia today). The latter was dismantled after the ROI and UK joined the Single Market, but the former did not disappear until 2005, per the GFA.

A lot of smuggling, sometimes in a quite hilarious manner (the Irish pig carousel).

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1044533037147541504


^^ Labour rifts over brexit are starting to surface...

Doesnt seem like it, TBH. It just looks like he threw that line in, and it was received rather positively. No major MPs are objecting to such a thing. In fact, if anything, its a rebuke of Corbyn, who supports leave, albeit discreetly.

[Silent Hunter]

As a rule, if you need to loudly deny something, it's generally not false.

[Antonio the Sixth]

@TomMcTague

1) Corbyn is desperate to stop banging on about Europe. Why? All out Brexit opposition, his inner circle’s concluded, only leads to a culture war they can’t win, undermining Lab’s core electoral strategy: populist economics based on class interest.

2) Lab wants to fight an election on populist economics which appeals to a clear majority: tax the rich few to give to the ordinary many. (See second home tax, private school tax etc). Brexit blows this up, offering ordinary leavers a cultural reason to vote Tory, Corbyn’s team say

Why Corbyn is (still) half-hearted about Europe

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-still-half-hearted-about-europe/

Corbyn is right. Going all-in on Remain would be Labour's death. He needs to be all about class issues.

[cp]

@TomMcTague

1) Corbyn is desperate to stop banging on about Europe. Why? All out Brexit opposition, his inner circle’s concluded, only leads to a culture war they can’t win, undermining Lab’s core electoral strategy: populist economics based on class interest.

2) Lab wants to fight an election on populist economics which appeals to a clear majority: tax the rich few to give to the ordinary many. (See second home tax, private school tax etc). Brexit blows this up, offering ordinary leavers a cultural reason to vote Tory, Corbyn’s team say

Why Corbyn is (still) half-hearted about Europe

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-still-half-hearted-about-europe/

Corbyn is right. Going all-in on Remain would be Labour's death. He needs to be all about class issues.

Agreed. Besides Corbyn's own apathy, there are sound strategic and political reasons for not committing to any one plan, especially when you're in opposition.

FWIW I suspect Labour will keep as much ambiguity as they can while inching closer to remain as the crisis of the next few weeks/months plays out.

[Blair]

Yes- whilst it makes you want a very long shower, and requires the moral gymnastics of standing by as the country implodes there's not much Labour can actually do in opposition- they have absolutely no reason to bail Theresa May out of a hole she made herself, and it's fairly obvious if they suddenly entered government that we'd extent article 50 and join the Customs Union and some form of Single Market hybrid.

I actually agreed a lot when I saw Team Corbyn brief that they were going to 'offer control' to Leave voters on issues like Housing/Workplace rights/shared ownership/energy. Whilst there's certainly a core of Brexit supporters who are the foaming at the mouth culture war types- I'm certain a fair chunk of voters find that more appealing than inane debates about trade.

[Silent Hunter]

Immigration is of course the big issue for many. If Freedom of Movement doesn't end, the case can be made we've not left the EU.

[rc18]

@TomMcTague

1) Corbyn is desperate to stop banging on about Europe. Why? All out Brexit opposition, his inner circle’s concluded, only leads to a culture war they can’t win, undermining Lab’s core electoral strategy: populist economics based on class interest.

2) Lab wants to fight an election on populist economics which appeals to a clear majority: tax the rich few to give to the ordinary many. (See second home tax, private school tax etc). Brexit blows this up, offering ordinary leavers a cultural reason to vote Tory, Corbyn’s team say

Why Corbyn is (still) half-hearted about Europe

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-still-half-hearted-about-europe/

It is funny watching media hacks trying to explain Corbyn’s position as some grand political plan because they cannot tell their readers the truth, he never has been a fan of the EU. He was a eurosceptic before it was cool. But pointing that out would scare the #FBPE horses.

[rc18]

It is funny watching media hacks trying to explain Corbyn’s position as some grand political plan because they cannot tell their readers the truth, he never has been a fan of the EU. He was a eurosceptic before it was cool. But pointing that out would scare the #FBPE horses.

Jeremy Corbyn makes the case for Brexit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc

Jeremy Corbyn on the single currency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZZcq25TTiQ

^^ everybody political hacks knew he was a eurosceptic, the Remain camp were so frustrated by his lack of interest and enthusiasm during the referendum campaign
you can just look at how he campaigned during last election and the referendum..  

but he's not a die hard eurosceptic like Bill Cash or Tony Benn, he cares more about social justice issues..

Corrected. Seriously ask some random people, especially the student demographic, and I seriously doubt they have seen that vote leave video or know about his long history of euroscpeticism. No he hasn’t called directly to leave like some but neither is he going to lift a finger to keep us in. Spinning this as some kind of strategy is delusion.

“He cares more about social issues” lol, sounds like someone’s been buying the spin. If you listen to what he says he points out that the EU by design is about economic and political disenfranchisement. He’s an old school communist, not a progressive wet.

[Blair]

Jeremy Corbyn is not a communist ffs

[rc18]

Jeremy Corbyn is not a communist ffs

He can call himself whatever he likes, it doesn't change the fact he surrounds himself with people who are. Murray officially is, Milne is in all but name, and until recently McDonnell was far more outspoken about his communist sympathies and miraculously finds himself at rallies in front of soviet flags. The list goes on.

That and there doesn't appear to be a communist dictator he doesn't like.  It is just a usual tactic of the extreme to brand oneself as more centrist than they actually are.  Hence the “He cares more about social issues” bollocks.

[Silent Hunter]

being in a Customs Union won't solve the Irish border,
and the EU made it clear you can't be in parts of the Single Market..

I think the best way to solve the Irish border problem is to have a border poll. We've not had one since 1973, which was boycotted by the nationalist community. If NI votes to join Ireland, the problem is solved.

Eliminating the 18 NI MPs would result in result in a 632 seat Commons with the Tories at 315 just one short of an overall majority once you take the Speaker out of the equation.