EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Parkleben!

my fb feed (which is an undeniable bubble) is also full of chat about this - people who feel like Dammit.

Echo chamber effect, as you say. The question to ask is whether those people would really not vote Labour if faced with the choice between a seemingly fairly benign Labour 'Brexit' (not that I'm trying to greenwash 'Brexit', I think it would be stupid for Labour to plough ahead with it, too) or the chance of some political change around the issue (see above), or a Tory 'Brexit' that clearly is aiming at stripping back rights, environmental protection, etc.

In a proportional voting system, voting for a smaller party under those circumstances makes sense; in a first-past-the-post system (unless, as I said, you're in a constituency where a smaller party has a chance of winning a seat, e.g. Lib Dems or Brighton) it makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, of course Brexit would be a big issue if it happened under some kind of catastrophic deal/'no deal' arrangement. I wasn't talking about that, but about its significance as an election issue. Labour brilliantly outflanked May the last time when they talked about completely different things instead. As an electoral issue it's not nearly as important or immediate to most people as all the other things that are wrong. Most people can't predict how 'the economy' will go--on past form, most economists can't, either. Some powerful stock or currency gamblers perhaps can to some extent, but partly because they'll be influencing the outcome by where they put their money. People care about things they understand--public services (see the 'Brexit' NHS bollocks), how politics makes them feel, etc., not dire abstract warnings from 'Project Fear' (still ongoing). Obviously, the challenge for Labour is to actually get their vote out, but the strategy of moving the focus away from a problem the Tory party mainly has still seems right to me. And Labour simply are right not to disregard the referendum result. So far, they've made a very good fist of what for them is a very difficult situation.

Hammond will never be Tory leader. He has negative charisma. Even May is better (until she commits those unspeakable blunders like those that characterised her election campaign, fields of wheat and so on).

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/24/uk_issues_first_gdpr_violation_against_brexit_campaigner/

Cambridge Analytic of Brexit "fame" hit with 20 million fine by ICO.
w00ps.

^^If Corbyn pushes this to, and wins, a GE and then takes us out of the EU he will guarantee that the Tories sweep back in at the next GE due to the impact on the economy that leaving will bring.

Every single credible forecast shows negative impacts - and they range from "bad", where we stay as close as we can to the EU, to "Mad Max undersold this" of the ERG version.

And voters will follow the economy - the Tories will advance a line of "Labour destroyed the economy, only we can bring it back and therefore have money for the NHS".

Where does that get us? It gets us a Tory government that has absolutely none of the restrictions that EU membership put in place - which also means goodbye to the NHS, EU food-standards, workers rights and so forth. It also brings us to a place where we are in dire economic straights that the Tories can use to justify re-casting the UK as an American clone.

Once Brexit is done it cannot be recalled, and even if Labour are the ones to do it the Tories can then take advantage of it. It's a box that should not be opened, as to do so enables the sort of horrors that the Mercers only dream of.

A Conservative government that would cancel A50 is better for the UK than a Corbyn government that would not.

(One reason for this is that Corbyn having to impose far greater austerity than the Tories would fatally compromise his brand).

Echo chamber effect, as you say.

This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?

To add, I don't think we have Labour and Conservative politicians any more - I think we have Leave and Remain MP's, scattered through both parties in a relatively stochastic manner.

Ignoring the defining issue of this, and likely the next, generation isn't going to make it go away (sadly).

No Tory would dare cancel A50. That would split the Tories permanently (or split them into Tories and UKIP).

They would, and will, faced with the threat of Corbyn.

This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?

Of course the concerns are shared by many. The question is what people will actually vote for when push comes to shove. I'm sure that would be an interesting polling question to ask, but I'm not sure polls would be such a good guide given their poor record recently.

I don't think we have Labour and Conservative politicians any more - I think we have Leave and Remain MP's, scattered through both parties in a relatively stochastic manner.

Obviously no. We have plenty of politicians who subscribe to the Labour manifesto at the last election, or indeed their latest proposals, and who aren't blinded by the great 'Brexit' deception. We have plenty of people who subscribe to traditional Tory policies, too. There are people on both sides who think that 'Brexit' would facilitate either of those, yes. However, it's not the case that we don't have 'Labour' and 'Conservative' politicians any more. The Third Way is currently, well, over.

Ignoring the defining issue of this, and likely the next, generation isn't going to make it go away (sadly).

Once again, May tried this at the last election, and it was a disaster for her. Don't perpetuate that nonsense. Politics is much, much broader than this and will continue to be. 'Brexit' would be a smokescreen.

Were there to be another general election, Labour would again not allow the Tories to use 'Brexit' as a divide-and-rule issue and the election would be decided on the substance of politics. That is, unless Labour conference makes a stupid decision to back a second referendum to potentially cancel 'Brexit'. That would really damage them.

No, they wouldn't. :)

And why would they be worried about Corbyn if there are no Labour or Conservative politicians any more, only 'Leave' and 'Remain' MPs? :)

We shall see, maybe empirical testing is the only way at this point.

Give people a choice between Labour Brexit and Tory Remain and the Tories will walk it.

Betting that the Tories will view sacking May and flipping to Remain in order to retain power goes against everything we've seen from them - always retain power, then worry about detail afterwards.

And, if that comes to pass, then voting Tory is actually the only way to save the NHS, which is bitterly ironic.

The economic impact of No Deal would be bad, but a minimal "Canada" Free Trade deal would also be bad, just less so, and so any party delivering it would be doing so for a small minority, and the majority would abandon them for a generation in response to the effects, leaving the Tories free to do what they want - a point which you are ignoring.

I am absolutely delighted by the abstract threats of Brexit...which are rather predictable.

Do bricks need to fly first in Northern Ireland?

The Tories aren’t going to flip to remain.

a wild visa appears

Can't wait for commonwealth handwringing (esp India). This is too funny. Never have I felt so secure having an Indian passport rather than a British one.

The Tories aren’t going to flip to remain.

In which case there is a large part of the population who will have no representation.

I can't see May surviving November, question is who the new leader is - if it's someone very different from May then will they allows themselves to be condemned by what May did before they took over?

^^If Corbyn pushes this to, and wins, a GE and then takes us out of the EU he will guarantee that the Tories sweep back in at the next GE due to the impact on the economy that leaving will bring.

Corbyn is neither stupid nor ideologically committed to leaving the EU. As I said, my prediction is that he would first buy time by citing May's crashing into every hurdle and then set about changing the political climate.

Every single credible forecast shows negative impacts - and they range from "bad", where we stay as close as we can to the EU, to "Mad Max undersold this" of the ERG version.

There's a lot to be said about economic forecasts. I'm not sceptical about them, but what you have to understand is that they are always premised on how the economy is run at the moment. The key thing is that for millions it's not running well. The large European economies (and at least some of the smaller ones, too) have become far more unjust than they were 30 years ago. People rightly feel ignored and marginalised. You have massive regional imbalances. Wealth distribution has become massively uneven and the relatively just post-war settlement (consider how the war effort brought people in Britain closer together, across classes; in Germany 1945 was year zero, etc.) has been thoroughly dismantled. Tax evasion and avoidance are rampant, public services have been and are being cut to the bone, vulnerable people and poorer people are suffering terribly as a result, racism and xenophobia are on the rise and as usual, 'divide and rule' is causing people at the lower ends of the income scale to fight each other.

That's how many people see 'the economy' and vote 'Brexit' or AfD in Germany. In Germany, the situation has strong echos of Depression-era Germany. So, frankly, many people don't give a stuff about the forecasts. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do.) So what if large corporations can't constantly roll their lorries out of their Amazon warehouses easily or export cars across borders any more? We'll rebuild a British car industry. We'll have more local businesses again that employ more people. So what if we can't get tomatoes from Holland easily again? We'll make British farming great again. If the Dutch can build hydroponic greenhouses, so can we. Oh, of course, there may be a period of adjustment, but we'll fill that vacuum. 'We have to start somewhere' instead of continuing further down the rabbit hole, don't we?

NB these are not my views, but I certainly have an overlap with them. It's just that while the inferences from the current situation are all good and correct, I'm sure, many of the 'Leave' voters are challenging the premise. Not all, of course, and I do think that the EU is completely the wrong target, but you can't just reply to their concern with 'the economy as we know it will collapse'. They may be insufficiently aware of how difficult it is to get back out of a depression and have too few positive proposals to chart a way forward, but their profound unhappiness with how it is at the moment is something you need to recognise.

And voters will follow the economy - the Tories will advance a line of "Labour destroyed the economy, only we can bring it back and therefore have money for the NHS".

Sure, except that, as above, voters may want a different economy to the status quo.

Once Brexit is done it cannot be recalled, and even if Labour are the ones to do it the Tories can then take advantage of it. It's a box that should not be opened, as to do so enables the sort of horrors that the Mercers only dream of.

Well, I obviously agree that 'Brexit' would be a disaster. I can't predict what would happen, but I certainly don't think that Corbyn doesn't see that possibility.

A large part of the population, roughly 48% at the last count, have not had representation for the past 27 months.

I really think you are constructing fantasies, Neil.

As I've said before, I think May will be Prime Minister until 2021, by which time the Tories will have implemented the Boundary Review. May sacked Osborne, who was behind much of the gerrymandering plans, and tried to go it alone based on the polls, and fell flat on her face. Not quite flat enough, leading to this current limbo situation, but the resurgent Labour Party means that no-one, not even Boring Johnson, will challenge her in her weakness, despite his sabre-rattling. (Then again, he's such an incompetent politician that he may risk it, who knows? We'll see if being funny on TV translates into electoral success again. He's just part-ditched a massive liability which means that he may dare to try again.) Now she's discreetly going back to some of Osborne's plans.

I really, really hope I'm completely and utterly wrong.

The economic impact of No Deal would be bad, but a minimal "Canada" Free Trade deal would also be bad, just less so, and so any party delivering it would be doing so for a small minority, and the majority would abandon them for a generation in response to the effects, leaving the Tories free to do what they want - a point which you are ignoring.

I wasn't, I was just drafting a post in reply to that, although I don't have much to say on it, as I don't think it's going to happen that way.

In which case there is a large part of the population who will have no representation.

As Andy pointed out, this is not unusual or new. What is more, the majority has been without representation (if by representation you mean, as it seems you do, a parliament which represents their political beliefs as expressed by voting for a party/candidate which shares them) since the Westminster system was established.

This is interesting Oliver, can you reference any poll that says that my concerns are not shared by anyone other than the people in Hoefla (and Howards?) circle of friends?

It's not quite the same but when you look at more recent polls on whether people think Brexit was wrong the gap between yes and no isn't massive.

From the most recent YouGov polls (2 weeks ago) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/09/12/how-public-feel-about-brexit-options/

The other suggested ways of getting through the next few years were all less popular. By 43% to 34% people would be unhappy if Parliament rejected the deal and insisted on a referendum about whether to go ahead. This idea gets less support than our regular tracker on whether people think there should be a referendum, suggesting that the process by which one was triggered would make a difference.

The idea of delaying Brexit to allow for a better deal also scored badly. By 34% to 28% people are unhappy with the idea of extending the post-Brexit transition period to five years. Furthermore are unhappy with delaying the departure date itself to allow time for more negotiations (36% to 31%).

This was interesting as an indicator of how little priority it has for many people:

The specifics of the Chequers agreement are not something that has cut through to the public. Over two-thirds (69%) say they have either not been following the story or are unaware of it.

Will Starmer succeed in forcing the hand of the arch Euro-sceptic Corbyn?

Standing ovation for Starmer after he tells Labour conference that if
the PMs deal fails and she refuses a General Election: “options must
include campaigning for a Public Vote and nobody is ruling out Remain
as an option”.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1044532305837137920

All this fuss from Labour members about a people's vote. I don't think it is going to be the magic cure they think it will. What will the options be:

1. Deal
   
2. No Deal
   
3. Remain
   
   

I can't see any of those options getting 50% of the vote.

In relation to the discussion above, if there were an election prior to leaving the EU, and there was a party that committed to having a further referendum that included an option to remain in the EU, then I would definitely consider supporting that party. The political orientation of that party would be a secondary consideration (i.e. Brexit is, in my opinion, the most important issue in the country).

It would presumably have to be a FPTP type of vote?