E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Well, it hasn't been surprising to me, but then I am a cynical chap. Likewise I expect Trump to get elected, and to become either the most ineffectual president in history, or the most pragmatic one. Time will tell.

The Lib Dems however are suddenly looking good. They're the only ones who haven't had a chance to cock up yet.

What is surprising however, is the boundlessness of John Redwood's arrogance:

Because, you know, unilaterally reneging on international legal treaties makes you a really attractive trade agreement prospect for other countries.

The man is totally delusional.

 

And you're saying that in a thread that only exists because a fringe party campaigned on a single issue and forced another party into governance by plebiscite?

 

I can't let a Redwood mention pass without being reminded of his time as Welsh Sec, when during a rendition of the Welsh national anthem, he did the best impression of a fish that I've ever seen.

https://youtu.be/GzBq0n8dxFQ

 

Here's a nice video showing how complex a cluster**** this situation really is.

 

In other news it seems the guy who wrote Article 50 into the Lisbon treaty has said, the treaty clause that triggers exit from the European Union was not actually designed to be used, that he had specifically inserted the article to prevent the British government complaining there was no way for them to leave the bloc.

 

Perhaps the British government should have insisted on a better formulated exit clause. But it couldn't even half-ass that one, which is typical for its contributions to the EU --and indeed for how it is leaving.

 

Yes.

Not all voting demographics are equal, even if they were it'd only be a slight bit more likely

(in the same sense that depite 52% of people voting leave UKIP never polled more than 19% and got roughly 12% in the general. So about as likely as a UKIP government getting in if we'd voted remain by a slight margin)

I'd bet everything I've got that the Lib dems would not win by a landslide in 2020.

It's a hardline remainiac fantasy, not a reflection of what is at all remotely likely in the event of a general, of the same variety as the swivel eyed loon's fantasy of a UKIP government.

Let's hear from Tim farron anyways:

Tim farron in the Guardian

While those policies may be attractive to hardline remainers he is walking a tightrope on the issue of the EU.
It is not as simple as him stating that he'll ignore the referendum, call a second or fight a general on explicitly remaining.

I'd assume there'd have been a compromise just to get that exit clause in.

Leaving the Eurozone would be catastrophic for the bloc as a whole so it had to be unattractive for Eurozone member to consider it. Leaving the EU itself without being linked in monetary union is much less of a problem.

Not to mention the Ideological zealotry nature of the architects of the European project the fact that an exit clause is there at all is a great/terrible miracle.

 

More blaming the EU for British government failings. Are you saying that Britain's finest diplomats couldn't have had a say in how Article 50 was formulated? Or was this passed through EU Parliament on one of the many days that Britain's Eurosceptic MEP's had not actually turned up to do their job?

 

I could equally say " More blaming the UK for the realities of compromise in the EU"
or
"More believing the UK government is terrible and the EU is a shining example of supranational governance"

Doesn't make it the point I or yourself were arguing, I'm not arguing that either side is to blame just that the realities of the situation make this probably the most that could be gotten.

Nothing in what I said would implicitly or explicitly state that we had no say.

I stated simply that the fact that it's there at all is an achievement in itself.

Compromising against 27 EU countries with many differing aims will not result in us getting it all our way.

I don't think we could have got much better; considering that the other 27 countries have political and economic pragmatism to consider being either part of the Eurozone or beneficiaries of the EU project (A8 countries) or very europhile; considering the ideological zealotry of EU architects and that our own government was always a remain government.

I think it was as much as we could have got and the least the other 27 had to give away.

In the blame game it is a score draw.

 

It wouldn't need a landslide though, they'd only need between 2/3rd's and half of those who vote to remain to swap their vote, if UKIP can get 3m more votes from 2010 to 2015 what's to stop the Lib Dems doing the same?

It seems your suggesting that even though UKIP can get 3m more vote that it's not possible for the Lib Dems to do the same or more, based on the 2010 election results before they got punished for entering into coalition, they'd only need 4m more votes and seeing as 16m people voted to remain it seems inconceivable that a large proportion of those wouldn't vote for a party who told them it would offer a second referendum.

Bookmarked for when we get the results of the 2020 election.

It just seems odd that you say the same variety as the swivel eyed loon's fantasy of a UKIP government when that's exactly how we've got to this point in history, what you seem to be saying is that Brexit came about because of the swivel eyed loon's fantasy of leaving the EU and UKIP but the same thing isn't going to apply to remaining.

Of course it's not a simple matter of the Lib Dems saying they'd ignore the referendum, that wouldn't be seen as democratic, however given how close the referendum result was and how *any* deal is probably going to be worse for the UK, added to that is how lots of people expressed regret over their vote so it really would take much for a second referendum to come up with a different result once people know what they're actual voting for and not just against.

That's what politics is all about, you can't have people living in groups making decisions without compromising, politics is the art of compromise.

 

Party loyalties, a damaged image and the fact people vote on a wide range of issues would see to it that the lib dems wont win a general by a landslide never mind get a majority.

Never said that they couldn't get to UKIP figures but the influence on the Tory party is lacking and it looks very unlikely that labour are going to get in government so their compromise to the lib dems wont affect the government's decision

The point is that where are the votes going to come from?

Tories 60-70% leave

Then there's the issue of party loyalties on top of that, returning UKIP voters and so on
More to lose than to gain by backing a lib dem style policy.

Labour around 60% remain.
Currently walking a tightrope in the north of england. Negotiating between leave and remain factions in their voter base and look like an electoral disaster waiting to happen.

The political fulcrum is not in the right place IMO to get leverage like UKIP did with the conservatives.

Matching my bet on lib dems not winning a majority?
I'll do a paddy pantsdown and say I'll eat my hat if the lib dems got more than 25% in the next general.

I'll eat a small hat if they got more than 20%.

I am saying that the idea of the lib dems getting into govenment by a landslide or by being the largest party, therefore being able to push their policy on remaining through is as much a remainiac fantasy as UKIP doing the same was a swivel eyed loon fantasy.

On the influence the established major parties of government I would consider that small in comparison to the UKIP influence given the demographics of the major party's current voters and that unless labour gets another tony blair figure they are going to self destruct/lose badly next time the only party that counts is the tory party. (not saying that it is impossible but the assumption that voting demographics and influence are all the same is at least as invalid as any other assumption)

The point is he's walking a tightrope to attract support. He has to be radical enough to prise hardline remainers away from other party loyalties whilst also trying to avoid being too radical that he loses possible soft remainers.


And then just look at the polls no change.......

 

On that we're going to have to disagree as currently, and if nothing changes, i think you'd find huge numbers of people voting Lib Dem come 2020, for starters Labour voters have typically been more aligned with Lib Dems and with the current state of Labour and them taking the same line as the Conservatives re:Brexit i would imagine plenty of remain Labour voters would swap to Lib Dems,

Added to that is how the Conservatives are probably going to be punished come 2020 for putting their own affairs before those of the country, it's a simple matter of numbers, there's around 17m people who vote to remain in the EU and with only a single party offering them a chance to rerun the referendum who do you think they'll vote for?

Seeing as they got 23% of the vote in 2010, before they got punished for getting in bed with the Conservative, you best get your hat ready.

And that's what makes your position so difficult to understand, do you really see people who voted to remain voting in large numbers for a Labour party that resembles something from the Muppet Show or a Conservative party that's caused a self inflicted recession and was so ineffectual that they chose to govern by plebiscite.

It seems you're saying that the majority of the 17m people who voted to remain are going to vote for one of the two parties that have been instrumental for the situation we now find ourselves.

There's no such thing as a hardline remain vote, there's people that voted to remain, those that voted to leave, and those that CBA either way and didn't vote, among those are hardline voters but there's no such thing as a hardline vote.

Re the polls: That's unknown, unless I've missed a recent poll, as the last one conducted by ICM was before the referendum in June, however we do have recent local election results to go by and they indicate a massive swing to Lib Dems...

EDIT: Dark clouds are gathering over our prospects of negotiating a good deal with the EU...

 

Never underestimate the utter stupidity of the British people.

 

You put less weight on the image problems the lib dems have to deal with among perennial labour voters which is fair enough but in my opinion party loyalties and those image problems will take a lot more time and effort to change

Also labour were a shambles in 1983 in similar ways and they still got 27.2%.

Again 30-40% (40 being generous) of tory voters voted remain. Of that number there will be people who are loyal to the party (or really hate the other) and people voting for them because they believe that their overall policies are best (the UK EU relationship is one issue).

How many remainers want another referendum (16.1 mn voters BTW), how many want one enough to abandon the party they are loyal to or think has the best policies for the country overall.

Ill have to buy a hat in that event (small hat 20-25%)

One thing to think about was how much of the lib dem vote 2010 and before was a non ideological protest vote, now they've been a party of government that vote ends up with UKIP, greens etc.

Looking at the last general election examples like ed ball's seat where UKIP were made out to have caused him to lose it when in fact 13.8% less voted lib dem at the same time that 13.4% more voted UKIP. The BNP previously polled 7.2% there in 2010. So it is likely that went to UKIP, LIb dem protest went to UKIP and Lib dem voters moved to tory.

Similar veiws happened across the country where a lib dem vote would collapse in a non lib dem seat and the UKIP vote share would rise in similar proportions.

Yes
People have when labour have looked like that before, I'd say people will do it again.

Yes
1) people voted conservative when they explicitly stated in their manifesto and made quite a big deal about in the election run up that they would govern by plebiscite on the EU and people didn't seem to have big problem with the Scottish one they did or the AV one.

2) The tories got re-elected after the self inflicted recession of 1990-91 (created in a failed attempt to keep us in the ERM)

They got re-elected after the self inflicted 1980-81 recession (created to get a handle on inflation expectations)

If, IF, any recession happens it would be of a cause of investment uncertainty which means that as things become certain the investments that weren't made due to uncertainty will be made no there is certainty. Investment slump followed by investment boom.

Which is a much more garden variety type of recession compared to the second worst type which is inflation control recessions, more along the lines of the old 50s,60s boom bust recessions.

So considering the labour party look like they did in 1979-83 (lite), the Tories look like how they were in 1979-1983 (lite) I think the outcome will be similar

You have too much faith in the electorate (or at least the proportion you voted with)

Hardline voters exist.

Voters aren't an homogenous bunch.

Both sides are heterogeneous.

If my use of the word vote cofuses it is often used when talking about a political, social or economic demographic.

e,g.
The labour vote
The Hispanic vote
The working class or D/E vote

There is a hardline remain demographic (clue: you're part of it) some people voted for the EU holding their nose, Some people voted merely for the status quo.

Some people voted leave or remain because they have a very strong unchanging opinion that the EU is better/worse future for our country and they are the hard line voters.

Ok we're going to go off a few council by election results where the turnout is lower than even a local election. Roughly half that of a usual local some as low as 17%.

I call it a dead cat bounce.

Well fortunately for my position there have been five polls conducted since Theresa may became PM and 7 conducted between the new PM and the referendum
I know it's wikipedia however the results link directly to PDFs from the pollster who published the poll (so check them out if unsure):

So we have since Theresa may became PM (reverse chronological)
CON: 40 43 37 40 39
LAB : 28 27 31 29 29
LIB : 08 08 06 09 09
UKIP: 13 13 15 12 14
GRN: 04 04 04 03 04
SNP : 07 04 06 07 04

Between New PM and the referendum (7) (reverse chronological):

CON: 36 38 36 37 34 36 32
LAB : 35 30 32 30 29 30 32
LIB : 11 08 09 08 07 07 09
UKIP: 08 15 12 15 17 15 16
SNP : 05 05 06 05 05 05 04
GRN :04 04 NA 04 04 05 04

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

[/quote]
Not good news. However if this were a premier league season we have only just kicked off pre-season, where a competitive game hasn't been played and the first transfer window hasn't closed.


On a side note:
I don't know what it is about the french government's culture of vengeance. They have a very spiteful/vengeful state that causes them to always be reactionary to those who they find have done them wrong.
That culture in the early 20th century had done untold damage when they had their way after world war one and after world war two they wanted to do the same again.
When ISIS attacked on french soil the next day they went balls to the wall on airstrikes against ISIS without thinking. It has been a consistent theme of their foreign policy for the entire 20th century and persists into the 21st. It is toxic and always ends up biting them and the world square on the a***.

While no country can be absolved from participating in such behaviour the french state always behave that way regardless of whether others are with them or not. Or history should warn them against doing it again

 

It's funny when you think about the optimism people have for political change away from main parties when the parties in question have been complicit in terrible things or what people see as terrible things.

Or continue to be voted for despite being a shambles (Michael foot)

Let's have a look domestically:

Financial crisis recovery

Worst recovery from trough to recovering to the previous peak since the 19th century probably as a result of front loaded austerity which both parties supported to varying degrees.


Result:

Tories voted into majority government. Junior government party (LDs) sucked into the political event horizon.


Financial crisis


Worst recession since 1930

Labour argued as causing it through deregulation and (more stupidly) gov't spending.
Both parties deregulated and voted for deregulation. Labour had better cyclically adjusted spending record than tories, not much water in between.

Result: The party that argued for more deregulation of the financial markets becomes largest party.

Iraq War

Public lied into the biggest western intervention disaster since vietnam.

Both major parties voted for the war, Liberals against.

Result: Labour voted back in with a majority. Albeit smaller and tories gain 33 seats, liberals 11

ERM recession

Pre monetary union scheme which was foolishly entered into by a tory government where the pound was pegged too strongly to the Deutsche-mark. Resulting in 15% interest rates mass repossessions and a recession all because they tried to beat the market and remain at a high peg.

UK left and the ERM collapsed.

Result: another Tory government.

I could go further.

It's always the same. Someone says " but.. but this time. this time"


Or more hilariously explained:

Worst government EVER

 

Well, if the UK appoints Mr. "The EU is like Hitler's Third Reich" Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and "Monsieur Non" David Davis as Brexiteer-in-chief, how does it expect the EU to respond?

But the UK tabloids are all over it again, calling it "a declaration of war". I'm sorry, who wants to leave who again?

One served as a commissioner for single market and financial services (4 years) and regional policy (5 years), and as French minister for foreign affairs, European affairs and regional affairs. The other briefly served as a junior minister at the FCO under John Major and has been relegated to the backbench ever since. Looks like an even match...

Meanwhile the government would do well to mind the results of these two recent polls. Will of the people, right? It's not all about immigration control anymore --it's about the economic bottom line.

 

No, i put more weight on them being the lesser of three evils, as show in council by-election results.

And they've now been let down on both counts, not only were they let down because they wanted to remain and are now being forced to leave because of an unnecessary referendum, but they've also been let down because the overall policies they thought were the best resulted in leaving the EU, something they didn't want.

A second vote is backed by 68 per cent of people who supported remain, that's around the same number of votes for the Conservatives in the last GE, even (approx) 2 million people who voted leave want a second vote.

How you worked out that swapping of votes is beyond me, suggesting that Lib Dem votes moved to Tory after you've previously said they were seen as the Judas party for entering a coalition with the Tories? And how you can say voters moved from a Europhile party to a Eurosceptic party is stretching things a little, don't you think?

That hat is going to need to be a lot bigger as even if half the people that support a second referendum voted for the only party offering one it would decimate the support of the other parties.

You seem to be suggesting they do that because they support Labour principals rather than opposing Conservative ones, i think the rise of the SNP shows that's not the case.

So you're suggesting that none of the Conservatives 2015 share of the vote was made up from the 17m people that wanted to leave the EU? You're suggesting that people voted for them because they agreed with all their policies and not because they were voting for what they consider the least worse of a bad lot?

Again you seem to be operating under the impression that people vote according the who they think are best when (iirc) most people vote for the least worst, when faced with two parties that both say no to a second referendum people will vote for anyone that offers them the least worse option and if that's Lib Dems then so be it.

Not at all, i have faith in the currently limited evidence we have that shows approx 12m people want a second referendum and that Lib Dems who are offering that have seen 30% increases in support.

I didn't say they don't exist, what i said is that when faced with a binary choice there's no such thing as hardcore, or hardline, there's either a yes or no, a 0 or 1, when faced with a binary choice it doesn't matter how "hardcore" or "hardline" someone is.

Well until more evidences comes to light it's the best we have, it's an early indicator, and as the article says "though the local gains will have little impact on national politics, council by-election results are often seen as one of the best aggregate barometers of a party’s electoral fortunes."

I'll have to do that later as your posts tend to be rather long and I've run out of time.

 

Just on comparison of brexit minister vs brexit minister.



David Davis doesn't hate Europe or hate specific countries.

He was appointed because he had a reputation for being strong in negotiations and to be experienced which isn't a problem. Would look fine the other way round.

Appointing someone who hates Britain and wants to punish us for daring to make a decision to leave a supranational body looks spiteful

There is a difference between the two.



It's precisely what many people, even on the remain side, find distasteful about the EU. Whereby they care little for government by consent and bring punishment to those who disobey.

Like when Greece elected syriza and sought to undermine the government and neuter it so that the Eurozone continues to run to the advantage of the core especially Germany.



Just reminds me of hotel California but on a supranational level:

Most verses in that song resemble a metaphor for EU/ Eurozone problems. Like the above for the Eurozone crisis.

or

Relegated to the back bench of the shadow cabinet for being too difficult for Mr Cameron as a shadow minister.

Like I said the French state seems to have a culture of vengeance in its foreign policy. It always, always ends up biting them right back on the arse along with everyone else.

The problem with those polls is that 30% of people want use to do both equally, 10% want free movement restricted and ~37.5% want mainly single market.

You could read a lot into that.

Ask people before going on a camping trip is food or water more important to you.
A number of people will say both if given the option.

Do you want your cake?
Do you want to eat it?
Do you want both?


Again with prioritise. That doesn't mean either or it means a great deal of things.

Do you want to prioritise food or water before you go on this camping trip?

Well yeah I'd sure like to prioritise water because dehydration kills quicker, but I would like to leave some space for food so that as long as disaster doesn't strike we have a pleasant time.


If you ask a real dichotomous question then you get easy to interpret certain answers.

Who you going to vote for? Lib/lab/con.
Leave or Remain in the EU? Leave/remain.

Ask some fluffy question that really needs more than a this/that yes/no answer proves very little.

People have multiple priorities.
People may think we can achieve different things like EEA access and no free movement, i.e they don't think there is a black and white dichotomy between those points and want 60% of column A and 40% of column B.


There are so many holes that can be poked into those polls it's untrue.

Not saying that your necessarily wrong but that relying on such polls leads to false hope.

 

Well, no. The Telegraph loves to paint Michel Barnier as "someone who hates Britain" because he was instrumental in driving financial service reforms following the 2008 credit crunch, including a cap on bankers' bonuses, which London City strongly opposed, and because drama sells tabloids. In reality he is a pro-Europe (rather than pro-French) politician with experience in financial and single market policies, and known to be a pragmatist. He also has worked with David Davis before. Any ideas of "hating Britain" and "punishment" are, as always, projections made by the British tabloids.

I think that Britain is singularly egocentric. You think that people in mainland Europe did not follow the Referendum campaign? Trust me, they did. Some pretty condescending and insulting things were said; comparisons with Hitler and the Third Reich were made, EU immigrants were made out to be vermin and terrorists. Farage and Johnson behaved atrociously. I think the EU's response to that has been pretty measured.

I think it is worse because this is Britain: a nation that had a reputation (to the rest of the world, at least) for being measured, stable, restrained and scrupulously polite. All of a sudden it is behaving like a South American banana republic. It has sustained a lot of reputational damage.

Greece lied about its deficit to get into the Euro, then went on a spending spree. Hilarity ensued (not).

That is not how the polls phrased it:

Both questions present it as an either/or choice, not a pick and mix.

This poll is also interesting:

51% of people would be OK with continued access to the single market and free movement; 46% would not be.

Also this poll:

Although it does indicate, as you say, people thinking that they can have their cake and eat it, only 26% of people expect to leave the single market; 70% expect to stay (with or without some restrictions on free movement).

It seems clear to me that when it comes to the bottom line, people value access to the single market more than ending free movement.

And this is how May will need to play it. She can't please everybody and she can't please one camp at the expense of alienating the other. While trying to keep Scotland and N. Ireland on board, while trying to protect the City as much as possible, while trying not to sink the economy, she will try to please the majority of both camps.

EDIT: I won't blame you if you didn't watch the 1 hour 10 minute video recording of the Treasury Committee meeting on 5th July, discussing the many legal and political challenges of making a Brexit actually happen, but they were talking about not invoking Article 50 until end 2017 because of a string of elections happening in key member states next year. Prof. Duggan also explained that repealing the 1972 European Communities Act is also not something that can simply be done without wiping out 40+ years of British law and no, you can't just copy-paste them into a British legal framework with a supplementary Bill because of the way they are formulated. They actually have to be examined, law by law, regulation by regulation, and rewritten to fit the British legal framework. And that will take a whole bunch of constitutional lawyers decades.

Hotel California is not because of Article 50, but because of a 44-year shared history of deeply interconnected evolution and development of laws, bureaucracy, politics and economics --which the UK had a major part in shaping.