Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

You don't need this frank admission to know that this government is unable or secretly unwilling, to manage the process of Brexit. Not one country has been approached with a view to setting up trade deals, not one!! That's if you don't count the mysterious visit to Israel by Priti Patel for a supposed vacation, in which she undertake discussions with Israeli officials (including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) And for which the PM and the Foreign Office were completely unaware, yeah sure!!

I think this is spot on honestly. Indeed we have actually had protestations from Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and others that under the Tories current plans of splitting trade schedules (both EU and WTO versions)- would actually mean that we are an unattractive proposition for them to trade with as they'd be limited in what they'll be able to sell us in terms of agriculture particularly as the Conservatives in an attempt to not get involved in trade agreements are hoping to palm off the EU's existing arrangements a particular percentage of the trade (So 92% of current wheat goes to the EU, 8% comes to us)- hence why i believe your quite right in no countries have been approached yet (Beyond the PM going to India last year and offending them).

Its madness to me for instance why the Commonwealth at the very least hasn't been sought out ( I get nothing concrete can be set- but you are allowed to lay down the framework, informal talking and understandings for trade agreements)- there's been multiple chances, and heck if you look at it, currently its a broken and shallow organization, containing some of the fastest growing (and in terms of Africa- predicted fastest growing) economies and some of our key anglo partners. It is ripe for a new kind of trade framework, that creatively could cut down on the issues and fears of the UK having to alone deal with China and the US straight away while we are in a very weak position by if done fairly for all, allowing us access to several key economies and opportunities from a myriad of states in a relatively short length of time (Reforming the Commonwealth could take a couple of years and practically would allow the UK to use its limited negotiating resources in an more effective manner than one by one approaching states that could take several years each to iron things out.- Again i do emphasize to differentiate my position from certain other groups who seem to believe we'd be able to bend the Commonwealth into our will in Empire 2.0 or some rubbish- this would require a reset in relations with India, and a recognition of equality of all members on an even footing- we cannot expect that they'll all jump at the chance, nor would i say make the Commonwealth a exclusive club/EU alternate group- instead make it an open trade and cultural block that doesn't restrict members- but does have actual trade clout for its members, unlike currently.

Honestly how can you have a government behave and such a secretive and covert way whether it was in that or during the Brexit negotiations, during which things are being agreed which even threaten the very future of the Nations unity. Do we really know how much money May agreed to pay the EU for a trade deal, because the figure of 50 billion that was being banded around, seems to have been leaked to the press! Government must be open and accountable, whether you voted Remain or Leave most people believe that. I think the only reason Theresa May is still there at No10, is to act as an "Aunt Sally" and carry the public's frustration and anger when the whole process goes belly up! Yes, we have a Conservative government who are accepting that Jeremy Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister, the only question is when, because I can't see her being propped up much longer given her level of mis-management

I am 100% with you here. Its also more than just the EU brexit issue, the government for instance with Universal Credit- had to be forced by labour to release the impact reports it was having on those its been rolled out too. Their actively avoiding votes- heck the last budget showed their also avoiding tackling any domestic issues. the Henry VIII laws can do more than just 'sort out' the regulations of the EU- but also can be used to change domestic law as it stands without parliamentary scrutiny. The 'weighting of the Committees' allows the Tories a majority on all of them, despite their lack of a parliamentary majority- a hand expressly dealt to them by the electorate because a Tory majority with its policies were not wanted. Their whole process currently smacks of being as cloaked and undemocratic as possible. Its honestly mind-boggling how they think its acceptable. What's worse though is that these are now precedents they have set for further governments to use- I wonder if they'll kick themselves when Corbyn's Labour do the same thing? But indeed it does feel May is the punchbag in the hopes that the electorate will blame her and not the Conservative party as a whole- i'd question though whether this will work considering their front bench is now also mostly tarred with the same brush of incompetence. I think also they underestimate the domestic economic issues they have allowed to go unaddressed and indeed in some cases made worse through what little policy they have implemented- this will perhaps see Labour (though not necessarily Corbyn who i believe would only do one term as PM before retiring) in for the next few terms as the Tories have to rebuild an image of being practical economists and not as current blind ideologists who keep as much from the public as possible.

[ioannis76]

To elect if it is Brexit time again or not? Even the Queen has given aproval by now..
To be fair, a second referendum on this, if confirmed the Brexit side again, people would just call for a third one. And if it gave a remain, there would be another one, then another one, and so on ad infinitum.

There's a reason you don't repeat elections too early except after something on the level of dissolving the parliement.

But this is the leftist and neoliberal view of democracy. If the result is not what you want, accuse the people who voted for it, and then have them vote and vote again, until you get your favored result. This is what our PM did with his party, when they internally voted for something he didn't like. As for the referendum, such things are insignificant for stalinist fossils. When the result of our referendum came out as no, he just ignored it and turned it into a yes. Britain's political culture is too high for such a blatant disregard of the public's view, so EUSSR fans in the country are just calling for another referendum.
So, the deal is to either conduct elections over and over again, until "we" get what we want, or to not hold any election at all (the EUSSR is quite allergic to referenda).

[Dante Von Hespburg]

But this is the leftist and neoliberal view of democracy. If the result is not what you want, accuse the people who voted for it, and then have them vote and vote again, until you get your favored result. This is what our PM did with his party, when they internally voted for something he didn't like. As for the referendum, such things are insignificant for stalinist fossils. When the result of our referendum came out as no, he just ignored it and turned it into a yes. Britain's political culture is too high for such a blatant disregard of the public's view, so EUSSR fans in the country are just calling for another referendum.
So, the deal is to either conduct elections over and over again, until "we" get what we want, or to not hold any election at all (the EUSSR is quite allergic to referenda).

'Leftist' and neoliberal are not one and the same mate, particularly in the UK's political context discussed here. There is an upsurge of the 'left' off the back of Tory incompetence over the last 7 years and inability of their 'right' to get to grips with modern economic issues- seen both in the last general election, but also recent polling (Labour are now in 'majority' territory according to survation- the only poll to get the GE and brexit right) regarding domestic affairs and brexit but they are not saying 'hold another referendum'- Indeed Corbyn's inner circle and he are against the EU as they see it as a tool for big business. The 'remainer' Labour MP's have all folded to Corbyn after his victory, and have accepted brexit, though with debates over if single market access should be sought etc.

There is an argument to be made though that the Conservatives need to hold a GE soon or some form of referendum (though a GE is probably the easiest and most legitimate method...particularly as one is coming soon next year anyway- the last few days have been the death knell for any remaining beliefs surrounding the Conservatives ability to govern, let alone actually 'do' brexit) on the 'type' of the UK that will emerge from brexit though- thus far they have been incredibly undemocratic as i think everyone agrees in this thread thus far by secretly trying to set up the future of the UK in regards to employment rights, type of economy, environmental protections, devolved powers, Using Henry VII powers to allow ministers to change anything they fancy without a vote etc without having any parliamentary say so by avoiding parliamentary votes (Literally not turning up), hiding reports, weighting committees (even though with a minority government, its constitutionally wrong to do so) lying about documents and goings on behind the scenes (making Labour have to keep forcing votes in Parliament using a very old loophole to get the government to release domestic and brexit related documents for scrutiny)- indeed the Conservative 'hard right'- are trying to push for a deregulated UK that they know would be electorally unacceptable (Indeed the Conservatives lost their majority at the election, so i do question the legitimacy of their being able to make long-term decisions beyond brexit regarding the structure of the UK).

Its the big irony that its not the 'left' being undemocratic- But the Conservative Party- who again are a strange mix of traditional conservatives, Thatcherites and 'New Labour part 2 (Or Cameronites as some have called them). All of them incompetent in their own way- The Thatcherites have no workable economic plan, Cameronites are advocating a different type of brexit which is cross-party...and yet keep putting the 'party' before this, and traditional Conservatives seem to have zombified on the domestic front, offering no solutions- let alone credible ones, and are fiddling while the party burns. This whole farce is made even more ironic considering it seems any criticism May has ever lobbed over at Labour, she ends up falling into 'Coalition of Chaos', 'Divided party', 'Strong and Stable', 'Safe pair of hands', 'Will of the people'- all the fan favorites- its like she predicts which up the Tories are heading towards next.

[ioannis76]

Interesting to observe UK politics. I was thinking that, because the whole concept of Brexit was suggested and materialised by Farage's nationalists, the hard-line left wouldn't want to have anything to do with it (out of reflex, this is how I've known politics to work in my country). But now that I actually read the OP , it seems that it doesn't work that way for other countries.
The conservative inadequacy is a standard, it appears, but (perhaps I missed it) where does the actual Labour Party (centre-left, I assume) stand in all this? The Centre-left is a traditionally huge force in modern politics, as many people identify with it for some reason, is the UK an exception?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Interesting to observe UK politics. I was thinking that, because the whole concept of Brexit was suggested and materialised by Farage's nationalists, the hard-line left wouldn't want to have anything to do with it (out of reflex, this is how I've known politics to work in my country). But now that I actually read the OP , it seems that it doesn't work that way for other countries.
The conservative inadequacy is a standard, it appears, but (perhaps I missed it) where does the actual Labour Party (centre-left, I assume) stand in all this? The Centre-left is a traditionally huge force in modern politics, as many people identify with it for some reason, is the UK an exception?

You've asked probably some of the most poinient question in UK politics there mate .

I think firstly its important to note that while UKIP indeed were integral to forcing the referendum, things get murky after that. The Conservative brexiteers, deny Farage had any real influence- this is because there was two 'Leave' campaigns in essence running side by side and technically in opposition to each other. UKIP's with Farage and an 'Official Leave Campaign' that was led by prominent Conservatives and no small number of Labour MP's.- inside that official Leave campaign there were further party splits on what 'Leave' would mean and how the advertised it. The Conservatives would argue that since the UKIP voter effectively disappeared after the last General Election, and that they are 'in government' (By being propped up by the DUP)- it was their version of 'Leave' that the country wants...and this is where ALL the issues start basically, as among the Tory leavers and general Tory party their are raging debates over that that actually is. This is further compounded by historically 'Brexit' being the prerogative sphere of around half the Conservative party (Who made huge issues around the EU for Thatcher and Major), before Farage and UKIP ever took up the banner in any serious way. So brexit is a very nuanced and subjective thing. Who you give credit to for brexit tends to be linked to party affiliation and subjective interpretation- i for instance tend to adhere to the idea that the Conservatives- to sort out their own internal fractures and also to stop UKIP nipping at their voting share. I though do accept that for someone who has been say long-term anti-EU more weight would be given to UKIP nipping at the vote share forcing the thing.

Now to Labour and what they are currently- as the Conservatives are a broad Church of at least four general political positions (and numerous small faction-specific interests), Labour is too- New Labour under Blair, 'modernized' the party and effectively made them 'centrist'. He did this by running roughshod over the older socialist, social democratic and working class based factions- using his stunning electoral victory to forced them to not quite adhere to his new mantra, but to effectively go underground.

During this time, there's actually a very interesting Economist article that details exactly what Corbyn and Macdonell were doinng- these two a social democrat/socialist (depending on who you ask)- were considered so 'irrelevant'- that they and their small faction weren't even given pagers by Blair and were basically allowed to continue as they always had, being a 'traditional left'- but without any real teeth to make big changes. - So yep under Blair it was definitely centrist- i wouldn't even use the terms 'Center-left' as basically there was a direct continuation of policy with Thatchers economic outlook, though they added multiculturalism to 'humanize'. Thatcher and this legacy it turns out was economically suicidal for the UK in the long term, despite the short-term boost.

Brown was in essence Blair 2.0. Beaten by Cameron who was Blair 3.0. Economic crisis- misused austerity begins to make a right mess. Labour meanwhile under milliband shift back a bit towards the traditional left- not too much, but suddenly market regulation is back on the table- its all very 'Liberal-Democrat'- the Tories call this Communist, much guffing and laughter- 'Red Ed' as they dub him is annihilated. Blairites are now discredited electorally- Iraq war, economic issues, anger at lip-service to real problems resulting from Thatcher and Blair economics- put them in a bit of a spin. An arguably joke/mistake puts Corbyn up as a leadership candidate- who is 'traditional' left-wing. This actually means he's a Social Democrat- He wants to within current structures of a market economy (that is regulated to be fair and has nationalized elements to ensure a fair playing field) and of parliamentary democracy make the UK a fairer place for the working classes, but also for everyone- idealism indeed, but he has some very interesting economic policies, and in the context of the struggle with the gig economy and automation, and in solving housing, cost of living crisis and social care- he's got the answers, unlike the Conservatives. He is not a communist (No revolution), nor a socialist particularly (again his reforms are not full nationalization- far from it- it literally is just the UK taking the best of the German and Nordic models). Corbyn wins...then a civil-war that lasts a good part of a year erupts in the Labour party as the Blairites and centrists try to kick this radical left-winger out... they fail at a leadership vote, and then the General Election comes around where Corbyn actually increases Labours vote share quite significantly for the first time in decades, actually taking seats that Conservatives have held for in some cases hundreds of years and robbing May of her authority- stunned silence descends on his critics in Labour- seems the country is crying out for radical change of the traditional left variety. The Conservatives who had been mocking Corbyn, suddenly start to take him seriously (Note no more laughter at his being 'unelectable', no more cat-calling etc)- Far from 'Red Ed'- here is an actual social democrat of the traditional persuasion- whose solutions fit the modern age. Que May scrambling to make the Conservatives seem 'for the working man'- something that recently was highlighted to fail in the falling through of social mobility in the UK (Something she pledged to solve)- as the entire Committee resigned at how incompetent and how little the Conservatives had done over the issue, indeed they'd been actively making it worse (This is one of many domestic issues that May has failed at and made worse- hence partly the swing the Corbyn). So Corbyn has gone from being a figure of ridicule to dictating the political agenda- its interesting to note how the Conservatives have moved to meet him- they tried going further right, which didn't work, and now their coming back to the center-right... which seems to not be working either. (A key issue being their key demographic support are the over-65's... typical enough, but their vote share among the under 40s has consistently fallen... its why their MP's have stated that they become 'extinct' as a major party within the next decade unless they also do something radical...which isn't happening).

So you could argue the UK Labour party is 'center-left' because in encompasses, like its Conservative opposite so many different perspectives... but in actuality its basically a Social democratic 'Traditional left' party which has ditched 'Identity politics' for 'Economic politics'- which concentrates on workers rights and improving living conditions, is against multinational corporations and tax evasion and argues for a radical relook is need for the UK economy (Which it is- the key thing that the right have forgotten is that to have a functioning democracy based on (traditional) liberal values of individualism, freedom etc you need to make sure that every one of the electorate has or can have the potential to have a 'stake' in upholding the system-in the UK that means a house or property through the way democracy has been culturally cultivated- at the very basis this means that democracy and the market 'works for all'- currently of course none of that is happening, and the right have failed to address it- thus creating as commentator like Joseph Nye have said a 'vacuum' for anti-democratic/flawed democratic or populist leaders to potentially rise and manipulate the country towards the far-right or far-left in the manner of the 1920s). So aye i don't think the UK is necessarily an exception- its more the UK Labour party for instance has always been quite different to Europe (The UK Labour party historically being a church for various left-wing movements- in the 1920's the unrest that happened over Europe with far-left and far-right parties rising up was captured and bent to the will of liberal democracy through the Labour party being stoically tied to parliamentary democracy and helping to quash radical elements who sought to overthrow it- for instance neutering the British communist parties potential vote share, while actively alongside the other traditional parties destroying Mosley's 'Black Shirts' ). So basically there is a big difference between Center-left Labour (Blair) and 'traditional left' (Or more properly termed- Social Democratic left) of Corbyn. The current one being based in economic policies that help across different identity groups and arguably across classes too- so while Blair would concentrate on affirmative action for specific minorities, Corbyn talks about fair employment practices for all.

EDIT: More brexit related- its come out in a further blow to the Conservatives- that their very own Chancellor- Philip Hammond- has stated that the cabinet and government have not yet discussed or agreed to what actually the UK is hoping to get from brexit or head towards. Its confirmed what's been said earlier, directly by the second most important position to the PM that the UK literally has no idea what it is negotiating for in essence. Mongrel is quite right then that we need to pause and rethink or come up with an idea quite fast.

Further to this Hammond has stated that the UK is going to pay the so-called 'Brexit bill' even if we do not get a free trade deal- so even if we drop out without a deal, we'll still pay the EU somewhere between £50-100 billion (depending on who you ask). May has immediately said this isn't true or going to happen...so just who is right? It seems to the Conservatives are fast giving up the pretense of unity here.

[ioannis76]

Great information, thank you for going into the trouble of writing all that down. It seems to me that Farage is a very skilled stonemason, who came to the Conservative "Rock" with a chisel and a hammer, and struck one blow at the very right spot, right in the fault line, if you will. For what reason he did this, who might have put him up to this (if anyone), is difficult to see. My suspicion that someone might have given him a "mission" is because once he achieved the Brexit, he just stepped down.
It looks to me like Corbyn is going to keep rising in popularity (as opposition leaders usually do) but if he doesn't deliver, if and when he comes into power, his party is going to be the next rock that breaks. One major Party breaking is one thing the system can usually handle, but both (because it's usually a two party choice)... I don't know.
So, the Labour was responsible for our view of the UK as a politically moderate and cool-headed country. Interesting. .

[mongrel]

Interesting to observe UK politics. I was thinking that, because the whole concept of Brexit was suggested and materialised by Farage's nationalists, the hard-line left wouldn't want to have anything to do with it (out of reflex, this is how I've known politics to work in my country). But now that I actually read the OP , it seems that it doesn't work that way for other countries.
The conservative inadequacy is a standard, it appears, but (perhaps I missed it) where does the actual Labour Party (centre-left, I assume) stand in all this? The Centre-left is a traditionally huge force in modern politics, as many people identify with it for some reason, is the UK an exception?

Britain doesn't follow Mudpit rules, as Dante has so elegantly explained.


Anyway, credit to all who have posted so far. It is good to actually exchange views on politics rather than prejudices.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Great information, thank you for going into the trouble of writing all that down. It seems to me that Farage is a very skilled stonemason, who came to the Conservative "Rock" with a chisel and a hammer, and struck one blow at the very right spot, right in the fault line, if you will. For what reason he did this, who might have put him up to this (if anyone), is difficult to see. My suspicion that someone might have given him a "mission" is because once he achieved the Brexit, he just stepped down.
It looks to me like Corbyn is going to keep rising in popularity (as opposition leaders usually do) but if he doesn't deliver, if and when he comes into power, his party is going to be the next rock that breaks. One major Party breaking is one thing the system can usually handle, but both (because it's usually a two party choice)... I don't know.
So, the Labour was responsible for our view of the UK as a politically moderate and cool-headed country. Interesting. .

Your welcome mate, glad to be of help here- its something i'm potentially doing for a dissertation so i've been stuck in such obscure stuff recently is all . I think the analogy of Farage is spot on, he also it could be argued helped Labour go 'back to its roots' under Corbyn as some UKIP support was drawn from ex-labour working class voters who felt left-behind by the centrist New Labour. So i would rate him as a very smooth operator for his end goal.

I think that is the big question for Corbyn and Labour- in opposition, particularly to probably the most incompetent government since Attlee (Some people say Lord North- but i actually think North did a pretty ok...or average job in a bad situation) who have actively made the UK economy and the lives of the majority of people in the UK far harder for ideological reasons has meant that he's been well...we've all seen it, Glastonbury- the whole cult of personality almost that's sprung up around him has been quite easy. It also helps that Corbyn while he's a bit 'stuffy' formal Parliament settings, is an absolutely sterling showman and campaigner- so when on the actual election trail he had a huge advantage over the Tories who tend to struggle to be engaging whoever it might be. Though whether this will translate well into actually delivering to the UK radical reform will be another thing. An election in 2018 as seems likely with a Labour victory might see them flounder in the face of a brexit that is impossible to 'get right' and an economy that has been in all honesty trashed by the Conservatives. I kinda see two scenarios- that either Labour will 'tone down' and thus start shedding support on not delivering, getting mired like the Tories in brexit and crash and burn. Or- the Conservatives will have made such a hash of things, brexit, the economy and domestic cities- that basically Labour can (must as Cameron did) use this to blame the now opposition and make political capital on that- adopting a 'saviours' honeymoon period that would see any issues over brexit- blamed on the Conservatives who set the framework- so we have to stay in the single market- Tories fault, we crash out with no deal and theirs been no trade talks with other states- Tories fault (Which is literally what the Conservatives did to Brown's Labour when they took power, and how they actually managed to stay in for a a good three terms by riding the mythos they created that 'labour directly ruined the economy').

I think indeed though as you say, it'll be interesting if both Labour and the Conservatives collapse- the Tory 'Wildnerness' years in opposition are going to be interesting enough, with many predicting the party splitting, Its entirely possible that a catastrophic Conservative failure as seems to be building might result in a Labour government, but with a new opposition- either of a 'centrist' variety (If Labour is seen to be the party of brexit and Tory remainers share a lib-dem platform), or a different type of 'right'- perhaps with Hard right Tories moving in on UKIP's territory, and UKIP also being revived by those who feel that brexit is being mishandled by the Tories, but who don't want Labour in for domestic or trust reasons. If Labour fall- i can see them splitting too into New Labour and Old Labour as the infighting will come back, particularly over what 'type' of successor to Corbyn their would be.

But yes indeed and in fairness the Conservatives have done their part historically in keeping far-right or radical elements 'down' by consuming them electorally and incorporating them into the party just as Labour do- though again i think lately the broad-church of Conservatives has been fractured by brexit more so than Labour (perhaps because their party functions slightly differently to Labour- Labour tend to emphasize the membership far more and rely on them for funding, especially recently in taking positions and have the Unions who are still influential backers, while the Tories have a diverse number of big business groups funding them, do not tend to rely on the membership to provide funds, but these big backers come with competing interests- all of which is made worse by the 1922 committee being a powerful institution for backbenchers, able to challenge the front bench and even remove them). Regardless though the Two-Party system by making smaller parties effectively irrelevant helps give the picture (historically at least, not sure now ) of the UK being a rather moderate, calm country- because all the shouty elements are boxed in by the two big parties like a dirty secret, or quickly made electorally irrelevant. The downside of course is the UK is very much less democratic than our European counterparts- a key issue of late- as Party whips and policy override concerns of constituents (highlighted by brexit in detail currently) and if say you were right-wing who was traditionalist, believing in the community, family, fair work for fair wages, christian values etc- well under Thatcher you'd have had a hell of a time as no party would have provided you with that. Currently if your a right-wing business owner of a small company- the Tories are also your worst enemy as their trying front-bench is espousing 'traditionalist' policies economically- they even attempted to make self-employed people pay more tax...which while they quickly u-turned on this due to the outcry- it rather highlights they are not the party for you.- Likewise left-wing voters can have the same issue- Care about centrist politics, pro-globalization and gender/identity issues? Good luck finding a party that would particularly espouse that currently. Heck if you are center left or center right- you have no one to really vote for .

Britain doesn't follow Mudpit rules, as Dante has so elegantly explained.


Anyway, credit to all who have posted so far. It is good to actually exchange views on politics rather than prejudices.

As always, Jealous of your ability to be concise, on point and witty mate . That's rather the perfect summary.

[mongrel]

I'm pleased I'm not the only one beleiving the whole management of Brexit is a farce, and I think that applies equally to Brexiteers, remainers and the indifferent. But I never anticipated this...Despite having previously indicated to Parliament that work had been undertaken to assess the impact of Brexit on Britain's economy in 57 areas. ( why wasn't this done before the referendum??!!) after a long no show, a vote was made in the House of Commons on the issue, demanding the Government to release them, with officials later releasing 850 pages of heavily redacted bollocks.


Mr Davis, who I'm told is the Brexit Secretary has now admitted to the Brexit Select Committee that there aren't any. This some 18 months after the Brexit vote. Not only is there no policy, there is none of the essential analysis (some of which is statutory) to inform a policy. This is beyond simple incompetence, it negligent.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8094481.html

[HannibalExMachina]

well, at the end of the day, they couldnt very well do planning and research in earnest, it just would show how brexit is bollocks. in public perception, well knowing you are screwing things up is still worse than having no idea at all.

[caratacus]

I'm pleased I'm not the only one beleiving the whole management of Brexit is a farce, and I think that applies equally to Brexiteers, remainers and the indifferent. But I never anticipated this...Despite having previously indicated to Parliament that work had been undertaken to assess the impact of Brexit on Britain's economy in 57 areas. ( why wasn't this done before the referendum??!!) .After a long no show, A vote was made in the House of Commons on the issue, demanding the Government to release them, with officials later releasing 850 pages of heavily redacted bollocks.


Mr Davis, who I'm told is the Brexit Secretary has now admitted to the Brexit Select Committee that there aren't any. This some 18 months after the Brexit vote. Not only is there no policy, there is none of the essential analysis (some of which is statutory) to inform a policy. This is beyond simple incompetence, it negligent.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8094481.html

Everybody I talk to about the subject no matter what their position, has an equally poor opinion of this government. Those of us who voted Brexit are viewing the handling of the process with particular cynicism about what the ultimate outcome will be. The confidence of a great many of them, went out the window a long time ago and their votes in any future election cannot be assured.

For example, following on from Monday's embarrassing turnaround by the PM in the Brussels negotiations, and today's admission by David Davis that no impact assessments were carried out on the economy for leaving the EU. You now have a Chancellor who stated to the Treasury committee, that it would be unethical and thereby inconceivable for the UK to leave the EU without paying them a cash settlement, whether or not we had any form of trade deal!! So in the decades to come, whilst our public services, NHS, police and armed forces budgets are facing huge challenges in meeting expenditure, the UK would be paying Brussels an estimated (wherever this figure came from?) 49 billion pounds, even though there isn't an obligation to pay anything. Astounding!!

[antaeus]

It wouldn't be the first time a non-binding referendum has been ignored by a government. And a 51/49 mandate a couple of years back is almost guaranteed to be a 60% against brexit now so the consequences for a change of heart probably wouldn't be a newly elected UKIP government.

Given how things have gone since the election, the only reasons I'm seeing here to continue with it is that 1. It would be politically damaging and 2. because Brits chose this path so should wear it like the stoic Brits they are.

It seems to me that the Tories are too tainted by Brexit to pull out now. It's a pride call. They've tied their future to brexit and that's that. Labour's Corban wing were always Euro-skeptic deep down and rather cynically are waiting for the Tories to implode and wear the blame for the guaranteed mess that brexit will bring. They can then sweep in like heroes and instigate the People's Republic of West Russia and be done with it.

I never thought I'd ever align myself with the Lib Dems... Heaven forbid.

[Adar]

I was arguing that invoking article 50 in the first place would be stupid even if it may have been necessary due to the national politics of Britain. From a legal perspective the referendum did not bind the politicians to leave the EU but ignoring it would obviously not sit well with a large proportion of the public. It is however quite astonishing how Theresa May and the Tories not only sticks to the referendum but also manages to make this fiasco their own despite Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage all being excellent scape goats that at least could share the vitrol from the public. Being the party in power the Tories are obviously the biggest culprit of the issue but the lack of support from Labour and most leading Brexiteers fleeing the field as soon as they had won the referendum should have allowed May and the Tories to take more control over the situation.

Personally I loath Jeremy Corbyn and even if I enjoyed Dantes in-depth description of events I disagree about Jeremy Corbyn being "nordic left". He is more similar to the moralist left wingers of the Social Democratic parties in the Nordic parties. These people carry influence in national politics but their contributions to any Nordic model are limited due to the same reasons that Jeremy Corbyn was a backbencher between 1983 and 2015. They lack the ability to compromise and only get into power in times when polarisation force more centrist politicians to collaborate with the fringes of the political spectrum.

Currently it looks to me like Theresa May wanted to grab power by both hands and in doing so she have quickly established herself as unacceptable to most of the population. The Tory Brexiteers distrust her due to her lack of transparency and blame Brexit failures on her rather than Brexit being idiotic while the centre and left rallies around the only serious alternative they have, which unfortunately happens to be Jeremy Corbyn. Are the Liberal Democrats really that bad?

[HannibalExMachina]

by your standards (not having any significant power, see Corbyn) they are, so you loathing someone you disagree with is hardly an argument (not that it would be anyway).

[Copperknickers II]

Interesting to observe UK politics. I was thinking that, because the whole concept of Brexit was suggested and materialised by Farage's nationalists, the hard-line left wouldn't want to have anything to do with it (out of reflex, this is how I've known politics to work in my country). But now that I actually read the OP , it seems that it doesn't work that way for other countries.
The conservative inadequacy is a standard, it appears, but (perhaps I missed it) where does the actual Labour Party (centre-left, I assume) stand in all this? The Centre-left is a traditionally huge force in modern politics, as many people identify with it for some reason, is the UK an exception?

Dante Von Hespburg's post explained things very well, but just to add in an important point:

Leave voters were concentrated mainly in white areas in rural and poor urban areas of England. It was really very similar to the Trump phenomenon: Brexit could not have won without combining support from less educated older people in rural areas (who tend to vote Conservative) with less educated middle aged people in small towns and cities in Northern England and the Midlands, who would usually vote Labour. The similarity between Brexit voters was not a question of left or right wing, it was based on the distinction between those who benefit from globalism vs those who don't (the 'somewheres' vs the 'anywheres', as they are sometimes called). So what Brexit did, was it split both Labour and the Tories down the middle. This was in large part due to the history in British politics of moderate 2 party politics, which means Labour was an uneasy coalition of hard left socialists and metropolitian centre-left champagne socialists/immigrants. Meanwhile the Tories were an equally uneasy coalition of educated metropolitan middle class centre-rightists including certain immigrant groups such as Hindus, with somewhat xenophobic rural true conservatives. So Brexit was basically a result of the joining together of the more extreme elements on both the left and the right against the educated metropolitan centrists, again both centre-left and centre-right.

Corbyn is an interesting one, because he himself is a metropolitan champagne socialist from inner London and is very immigrant-friendly, he hangs around with a lot of dodgy groups including the anti-Israel Free Palestine crowd, many of whom are rather hardline Islamists. However, because he's also a hard-left (democratic) socialist, he has the allegiance of a lot of people not just in traditional inner city Labour areas in the South of England and the Midlands, but also a lot of Brexit-voting Northern areas, because he was actually quite anti-EU until he became Labour leader and was convinced to grudgingly campaign for Remain. The group which Corbyn tapped into most (apart from capturing the hard left vote, which was expressing itself through Brexit mainly as a protest that they were denied a proper far left candidate, and prefer Corbyn to Farage and the Tory Brexiteers) was young people. A lot of Corbyn voters are from poor white areas in the North of England and other Brexit-voting areas, and are the children and grandchildren of people who voted for Brexit. When it came to the Brexit referendum, these young people either didn't vote at all, or they didn't really understand and just voted how their parents told them. But then when the Tory party collapsed into paralysis and infighting, there was shock in the Labour party, as they expected it was Labour which would collapse and Corbyn would end up being forced out. Then Theresa May called an election early this year, and the Labour party realised this was the make or break moment for Corbyn. Everyone expected the Tories to win a landslide majority, and so the anti-Corbyn elements of the Labour party came up with a plan: they would allow Corbyn's supporters (led by the socialist group Momentum) to lead the Labour campaign in whichever way they saw fit. Then when they lost, it would be easy for them to get rid of Corbyn by putting the blame on him. However, as you may know, Theresa May's gamble backfired, not surprisingly, as a lot of Brexit supporters deserted her (many either didn't vote as they assumed she couldn't fail to win, or they were Labour/UKIP voters who backed the Tories in 2015 just to guarantee the Brexit referendum promised by David Cameron). The result was, Momentum managed to reach out to young people who had never voted before in many cases, and convinced them to come out and support Corbyn. And so May lost her majority and Corbyn will be the Labour leader for the forseeable future.

[Prodromos]

Seems simpler to have a second referendum to clarify that the electorate really wants to undertake this rather labourious process, which is a tradition concerning EU policy, at least within the EU.

I thought that was the whole plan. Delay it as much as possible, until a Labor government's in power, and then declare that since the electorate voted in a pro-union government, Brexit is no longer what Britons support. That is Europe's MO: hold one referendum after another until you get the result you want.

Britain is not leaving.

[Adar]

by your standards (not having any significant power, see Corbyn) they are, so you loathing someone you disagree with is hardly an argument (not that it would be anyway).

That I loath someone is my position on the subject of what I think of that person. Why I loath him is a separate subject that is more suitable for another thread given that this thread is about Brexit.

[Copperknickers II]

Currently it looks to me like Theresa May wanted to grab power by both hands and in doing so she have quickly established herself as unacceptable to most of the population. The Tory Brexiteers distrust her due to her lack of transparency and blame Brexit failures on her rather than Brexit being idiotic while the centre and left rallies around the only serious alternative they have, which unfortunately happens to be Jeremy Corbyn. Are the Liberal Democrats really that bad?

Most people in the UK forget the Lib Dems even exist. The idea of them becoming the majority party is a joke. And yes, they are that bad, they are just pro-Remain Tories and besides they want to have a second Brexit referendum, that's not exactly going to help matters. The real voice of reason in the UK is the SNP, they are actually in power (if only in Scotland) and so they don't have the luxury of just saying whatever people want to hear like the Lib Dems do which means they have to make sensible suggestions. The SNP also have three times as many seats as the Lib Dems despite the fact that the SNP only contest seats in one small part of the country and the Lib Dems are nationwide, which shows you just how irrelevant the Lib Dems are. The Lib Dems try to go for the votes of younger educated people such as myself since we are the main Remain constituency: tell me, Adar, seriously, if someone stole £30,000 of your money and then asked you to vote for them, would you? That is what the Lib Dems did to me and thousands of others during their time in coalition with the Tories (and voting for a party willing to go into coalition with the Tories is reason enough for not voting for them).

[Heathen Hammer]

I thought that was the whole plan. Delay it as much as possible, until a Labor government's in power, and then declare that since the electorate voted in a pro-union government, Brexit is no longer what Britons support. That is Europe's MO: hold one referendum after another until you get the result you want.

Britain is not leaving.

Ignoring results of referendum is something that would take away Labor's legitimacy and build grounds for a coup or revolution. People voted Leave because they want out of EU, not because government is pro-Union. Not to mention that Labor would scare some of those Remainers who are not fiscally illiterate enough to support Labor's policies, thus making even bigger part of population support the notion of leaving.

[mongrel]

Ignoring results of referendum is something that would take away Labor's legitimacy and build grounds for a coup or revolution. People voted Leave because they want out of EU, not because government is pro-Union. Not to mention that Labor would scare some of those Remainers who are not fiscally illiterate enough to support Labor's policies, thus making even bigger part of population support the notion of leaving.

Remain is not a Labour position . It isn't even a left -right issue. I suggest you follow the spirit of the thread by following the example of the excellent posts spelling out the complexities of this issue.