UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[MillennialModerate]

Have to say Boris has played this great.

He’s talking with all the bluster of a confident leader that’s gung ho on a No Deal if need be, thus weakening the Brexit Party DRAMATICALLY. Now he seems primed to call an election with a weakened Labour, a handcuffed Brexit party: He’s going to thread the needle to a majority

Must ... not ... feed ... trolls ...

What of the things I said insinuates I’m a troll?

Especially considering this...

https://twitter.com/sebastianepayne/status/1168546988205518850

[Mr. Illini]

Genuinely confused at why I’m seeing so many “Boris has won” takes out there (not necessarily here).

Doesn’t everything kind of hinge on the vote tomorrow?

Obviously, if Johnson wins, he’s shown that he has a majority in the Parliament and Corbyn would have to take a serious look at his options.

If Johnson loses the vote, Corbyn could go back on his call for an election. Boris then decides whether he’ll comply with the request to Brussels for a delay. If he does, Corbyn has succeeded in the short term.

If he does not comply, Corbyn has good reason and strong standing to call a No Confidence vote.

Am I getting anything wrong?

[J. J.]

The EU should refuse to negotiate until Parliament is reopened.

Then the UK will just pull out.

The will of the people was expressed in the referendum, like it or not. 

(I am sure that Trump is asking if he can prorogue Congress.)

The will of the people was expressed once multiple Years Ago by a razor-thin margin. If we are truly concerned about the will of the people, hold another referendum, as polling indicates brexit would probably be repealed.

It always astounds me that the people who just want brexit for its own sake go on about the will of the people and democracy, and yet at the same time our Foursquare of against allowing the people to express what appears to be a majority in favor of second thoughts and regrets.

Oh no, they cry. We can't go back and forth and have a referendum on leaving every couple years. Who will think of the stability? Yeah, sure. Where's your Devotion to democracy in the will of the people now? With that kind of the will of the people binding Nation forevermore, we would still have prohibition in effect.

Just drop it pretense of caring about democracy. Supporters want brexit for brexit sake, and will fight to keep it anyway possible no matter how much of a klusterfuk it is turning into

If a society chooses to use a referendum, it better abide by the results.  It is not a pretense.   

The people made the decision, live with it. 

[J. J.]

Genuinely confused at why I’m seeing so many “Boris has won” takes out there (not necessarily here).

Doesn’t everything kind of hinge on the vote tomorrow?

Obviously, if Johnson wins, he’s shown that he has a majority in the Parliament and Corbyn would have to take a serious look at his options.

If Johnson loses the vote, Corbyn could go back on his call for an election. Boris then decides whether he’ll comply with the request to Brussels for a delay. If he does, Corbyn has succeeded in the short term.

If he does not comply, Corbyn has good reason and strong standing to call a No Confidence vote.

Am I getting anything wrong?

It seems to be the case, except that Johnson will likely face a vote of no confidence, and call for a new election.  It is a gamble, be he will likely win it. 

[Virginiá]

If a society chooses to use a referendum, it better abide by the results.  It is not a pretense.  

The people made the decision, live with it.  

And given that the people made the decision to go down this path, you can just as easily argue that it is only proper to have a 2nd referendum asking how they want to exit (or whether they want to abort), given how incredibly bad the situation has been handled, and how indecisive the government has been on what appears to be no good options. It doesn't really make sense to say the people should be weigh in on leaving, but then when the govt cannot agree on how, that the people shouldn't again be given options for proceeding. Arguing against that seems more like fear that the people may choose to stay after all, in light of what has happened since (and what they have learned).

[cp]

If a society chooses to use a referendum, it better abide by the results.  It is not a pretense.   

The people made the decision, live with it. 

And given that the people made the decision to go down this path, you can just as easily argue that it is only proper to have a 2nd referendum asking how they want to exit (or whether they want to abort), given how incredibly bad the situation has been handled, and how indecisive the government has been on what appears to be no good options. It doesn't really make sense to say the people should be weigh in on leaving, but then when the govt cannot agree on how, that the people shouldn't again be given options for proceeding. Arguing against that seems more like fear that the people may choose to stay after all, in light of what has happened since (and what they have learned).

Indeed. A referendum can be democratic or it can be irreversible, but not both.

[Gustaf]

If a society chooses to use a referendum, it better abide by the results.  It is not a pretense.   

The people made the decision, live with it. 

And given that the people made the decision to go down this path, you can just as easily argue that it is only proper to have a 2nd referendum asking how they want to exit (or whether they want to abort), given how incredibly bad the situation has been handled, and how indecisive the government has been on what appears to be no good options. It doesn't really make sense to say the people should be weigh in on leaving, but then when the govt cannot agree on how, that the people shouldn't again be given options for proceeding. Arguing against that seems more like fear that the people may choose to stay after all, in light of what has happened since (and what they have learned).

Indeed. A referendum can be democratic or it can be irreversible, but not both.

I think there is a distinction between saying a referendum is irreversible and saying it should be reversed after less than a typical parliamentary term.

[Helsinkian]

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1168809303333097473

[parochial boy]

I mean, the obvious point would be that unless you have a formal mechanism by which referendums are triggered, then they are always going to be a crap way of making policy. Because they are essentially never going to be anything more than arbitrary in terms of when and why they are held

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The issue is, the referendum was always too vague to be an accurate litmus test of the public (which is why most analysts simply read their own pet theories into the results). Rather than "Leave" being a clear choice that Brexit Britain will go down (e.g. "Britain will leave the EU and enter into EFTA" or whatever) it was just "Leave". which is how we have the absurd sight of Brexiteers who once proclaimed Switzerland and Norway as exemplars during the referendum denouncing Norway as some kind of colonial annex of the EU.

I mean, say what you like about the SNP: people voting Yes in the 2014 referendum knew what they were voting for, and the kind of independence the government were pushing for.

[cp]

Good point, although I'd say that's a separate, though relevant, matter to the one gustaf brought up. The fact that the referendum question was vague and stipulated as 'advisory' granted wiggle room to Leave advocates during the campaign and Leave supporting politicians afterward. No doubt, this was a tactical advantage in winning the referendum but has turned out to be a strategic mistake. However, it's not a reason in and of itself for why the result of the referendum need not be implemented no matter what.

The matter of whether the referendum result - however badly worded the question - can or ought to be implemented without being annulled/preempted is more about democratic legitimacy than politicking. I grant that there is a pragmatic argument for not holding referendums on the same (massive) issue every few years, but having a confirmatory vote on an initial proposition is neither novel nor undemocratic. As it happens, many on the leave side proposed doing just this when they thought they were going to lose the first one!

Separately, I agree that a government/ruling class blithely ignoring the results of a referendum it called is arrogant and irresponsible, but I don't really think that applies here. The May/Johnson governments have tried - to the exclusion of almost all else, it seems - to implement the result as best they can. The fact that their efforts have been so hapless and incapable of garnering majority support in Parliament or among the general population doesn't negate the fact that they *did* try. Presented with such a state of affairs, calling for a second referendum on the same issue, albeit with clearer terms, is probably the most responsible course of action.

[CumbrianLefty]

Have to say Boris has played this great.

He’s talking with all the bluster of a confident leader that’s gung ho on a No Deal if need be, thus weakening the Brexit Party DRAMATICALLY. Now he seems primed to call an election with a weakened Labour, a handcuffed Brexit party: He’s going to thread the needle to a majority

Must ... not ... feed ... trolls ...

What of the things I said insinuates I’m a troll?

Especially considering this...

https://twitter.com/sebastianepayne/status/1168546988205518850

A poll that shows the Tories *losing* seats on 2017?

(when they were already at almost the bare minimum to govern)

And in a GE campaign "Boris" won't be able to hog the media coverage as he has until now.

[Gass3268]

Up to 15:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1168845232366063618?s=20

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1168885296785739777?s=20

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1168895536709230592?s=20

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1168896357836492801?s=20

[Lachi]

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1168895602912059392?s=21

what a savage, I love it.

[DaWN]

No chance of him being re-elected but the less MPs in the two main parties the better, even if probably only briefly.

[Oryxslayer]

No chance of him being re-elected but the less MPs in the two main parties the better, even if probably only briefly.

Really? This is a marginal leave area in suburban Greater London which saw a huge Remain related swing to Labour last election. Seems like the exact kind of place the LDs are going to be targeting in a few weeks.

[DaWN]

No chance of him being re-elected but the less MPs in the two main parties the better, even if probably only briefly.

Really? This is a marginal leave area in suburban Greater London which saw a huge Remain related swing to Labour last election. Seems like the exact kind of place the LDs are going to be targeting in a few months.

Bracknell is definitely not suburban Greater London. Also, while Labour did improve, it was mainly due the general third party collapse of 2017, Lee's majority barely fell at all. A 30% majority is going to be hard to overturn, nevermind a 51% majority which is what the Tories had over the LDs in 2017. Plus of course, as I said yesterday about the Surrey strongholds, the LDs have far better targets, not least defected MPs they actually have a chance of saving.

Of course, I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it.

[CumbrianLefty]

I agree, and arguably it makes such a thing more admirable.

(presuming that Lee knows that he has little chance of re-election in his new colours)

[Silent Hunter]

Pretty gangsta to do it right in front of BoJo as he was speaking...

[YL]

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1168895536709230592?s=20

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1168896357836492801?s=20

They still have a working majority (of 1) if you count Charlie Elphicke, who has had the Tory whip suspended but will generally vote with the Government.  If they're really going to throw out everyone who votes against them tonight, the majority really will be gone.

My MP Jared O'Mara was expected to resign today, which would have moved it back to 0 excluding Elphicke or 2 including him, but apparently he has "postponed" this.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is why calling a general election would be a titanic gamble by Johnson:

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1168920541065109505

[Oryxslayer]

This is why calling a general election would be a titanic gamble by Johnson:

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1168920541065109505

I mean that's fairly standard, nobody likes a GE for a buffer/in govt like May tried. But instill the Leavers with the sense of fear that Brexit may not happen - either by a short opposition unity govt, or a govt brought down by Remainers seeking to insert further delays, and I suspect the numbers flip. Like the opposition of course would want a GE more.

I mean, this is the whole reason why Boris's current 'campaign' message is "I'm ready for Brexit," he's expecting the Remainers to jam up the gears and change the direction from leaving in October to Leaving When???. It's the kind of message that will work even better when you are the only Leave faction with MPs standing against the proverbial hordes of Remainers.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1168941734048489479

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1168941787077128193

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1168941796992475137

Two polarized worlds folks.