EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

The problem is that the ERG and its ilk simply want to fall out of the EU with no deal and let the chips fall where they may. Hang the short- and mid-term consequences (which they won't suffer anyway), it's about long-term freedom for the UK (to turn into some Thatcherite/Randian, low-tax, deregulated, minimal public service, unfettered free market utopia).

Aside from the fact that this has horrible implications for much of the population, it's deeply undemocratic. This is not how Brexit was sold during the campaign, that was all about close ties with Europe and all-of-the-benefits-with-none-of-the-costs. How can it be in line with a democratic vote that we end up defaulting to a no-deal situation as a failure of the process that people voted to put in place?

Cue Torygraph readers spitting their sherries out in unison and muttering about how the paper has been infested with Bolsheviks...

How can it be in line with a democratic vote that we end up defaulting to a no-deal situation as a failure of the process that people voted to put in place?

This is a very salient point and one that needs emphasising by remain supporters.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/17/brexit-deal-theresa-may-andrea-leadsom-michael-gove-liam-fox

These 5 Stooges surely realise that May cannot alter even the punctuation of the draft Withdrawal Agreement.
Are they just positioning themselves as the brexiteurs who tried to save the 'One True Brexit'?

This is a very salient point and one that needs emphasising by remain supporters.

The problem is that Brexiteurs have a stock response along the lines of "I only remember one question on the ballot paper! Leave or remain" but this assumes that everyone who voted leave either actively wants a no-deal Brexit or is has no red lines and is happy with Brexit-at-any-cost. It's absolutely in their interest to present the small majority on the stupidly oversimplified question as carte-blanche.

There is some very worrying evidence that the whole leave campaign was orchestrated by a relatively small number of these hard-line Brexiteurs who either think that a no-deal Brexit is actually good for all Brits (because trickle-down economics and chlorine-washed chicken) or patently don't give a shit about anything other than their own profits.

If Corbyn manages to force an election (a dim and distant prospect, I think), what room for manoeuvre he would have would really depend on the outcome of the court case determining whether the UK has a unilateral right to rescind its declaration to leave under Article 50 or whether it needs the assent of all the member states. This (or, rather, the question of whether it should go to the ECJ) has obviously just been referred to the UK's Supreme Court rather than going straight to the ECJ as determined by the Scottish legal system.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/16/uks-top-court-to-consider-government-appeal-in-brexit-reversal-case

If the UK had a right to say 'hey, we were only kidding', an incoming Labour government could buy time in this way. There would obviously have to be a fair amount of spin.

Of course they understand that. What they're doing is a way of maintaining their brand value as 'Brexiteers' without resigning, i.e. without any formal or procedural consequences for themselves (as May isn't going to sack them for it, cabinet discipline being appalling as a result of the splits in the party and her weakness).

As I've said, I expect the Tories and DUP to find some way of 'saving face' (well, not if you see through them) and in the end voting for May's deal just to keep the threat of a general election away until constituency boundaries have been redrawn and they can hope to keep Corbyn out. In the meantime, we'll see all kinds of silly theatrics but nothing serious. I mean, Dominic Raab resigning isn't a threat for May because he was sidelined, anyway, and he obviously realised the DExEU job was a dead-end street that he had nothing to gain from, so having Barclay there now is win-win for them both. Apart from that, some junior ministers resigned, probably all for reasons separate from the 'Brexit' process. Nobody has resigned whose resignation would matter.

The ERG leadership challenge, if it comes off, will either fail, leaving May strengthened, and the ERG will then be able to say 'well, we tried, but now we have to be behind May'--or it will succeed, installing Boris Johnson or David Davis as a caretaker prime minister, with the DUP arrangement continuing, in which case there might well be 'no deal'. Granted, even now, both options seem unlikely, but never underestimate people's desire to stay in power against maintaining their 'principles'.

I think Boris is going to campaign for PM on a remain platform.

Ha, well, I could see that happening.

Fuck it, why not. Nothing could surprise me at this point.

One last throw of the dice for him, and with no remain candidates to oppose him he might win based on lesser of two evils.

If it is impossible...it is of her own making...she has made no effort to reach out to the 48%....Brexit means Brexit, Red white and blue Brexit etc etc....no sympathy with her at all or her ilk.

No...because Tory members are essentially Uber Brexiteers...and would see that as betrayal to the holy Referendum of 2016.

The Tories are (and have been for etc years) two parties- center-right and loons.

The loons are now lined up behind ERG- do they outnumber the moderates though? That’s the key question. We might still end up with David Davies as PM.

All the parties are several parties in one.

Which saves us from learning lots of initials and acronyms. Until certain people started calling a general election a GE etc...

Have we had Dorries, not quite grasping what brexit is about...

https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1063790996859830272?s=09

The sad irony of "take back control" is that people now are given even less...

She's obviously expressing herself a little clumsily, but isn't she just alluding to the (oft-stated) fact that the 'deal' positions the UK as if it were still in the EU but without any voice or participation?

Honestly, "reaching out" etc., that's just words, and it couldn't have ever been more than words. This is one of those situations in which there simply is not any kind of compromise that will make both sides even remotely happy. I am not very sympathetic to any Tory, but I honestly don't see what she could have done differently that would have improved things overall. Bar of course trying to stop this entire catastrophe, but I doubt they would have let her anyway.

She could have set up an investigation like the Mueller one in USA to aggressively pursue Banks et al. for foreign intervention in Brexit adn irregular campaign financing-which has been known for the last two years-and stamped on media outlets to push the liklihood that the referendum result was both bought and flawed with a view of just killing the whole enterprise before it could be enacted.

Instead of taking control of this narrative, she permitted herself to be steered by the extremists in her own party and special interest groups that stood to benefit (probably including her husband) who operated far more actively through the media and continued to steer the development of Brexit and the progress (or lack thereof) of the negotiations.

The BBC hasn't once reported Carole Cadwalladr's investigation into Banks and foreign influence on the Leave campaign- reported everywhere else-which says about as much as you need to know regarding the government's position on that or their reluctance to refer the matter to the NCA until the 1st November this year. In parliament the SNP have repeatedly challenged the government to actually respond to these reports with a view of bringing the legitimacy of the referendum into focus and they have declined on the basis that it's an ongoing investigation.

So, she's either totally fucking inept, or perfectly happy to steer us to the outcome that is coming our way.

Twitter is patiently (and not so patiently) explaining to this idiot that Oklahoma doesn't control its own tariffs...

Reaching it means not ignoring those who voted to remain and build a consensus...eg Norway which have delivered on the referendum but would have maintained the SM and CU and FOM and prevented a hard border in Ireland and given certainty to everyone....What could she have done differently? Not bung in A50 without thinking of what the UK wants? Ridiculous rhetoric...Brexit means Brexit, Not calling a GE in 2017, Red Lines that put her on a collision course with the EU and the antagonising the EU by trying to negotiate behind Barnier's back...appointing Johnson and Davis etc etc...apart from that nothing.

More unicorn thinking from Loathsome and her dim chums.

Reaching it means not ignoring those who voted to remain and build a consensus

My wife and I had a disagreement. She wanted to get a cat and I didn't... so we compromised and got a cat.

It's an old joke, but it does mirror the situation quite nicely. How on Earth are you meant to build a consensus when the population is split more or less 50-50 on the fundamental action point of the referendum? And that's not even taking into account the fundamental split in the Brexiteur camp. I think Theresa May has done a lot of stupid shit, but I don't think she should ultimately be held accountable for failing to deliver on other people's idiotic promises.