Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

British people already voted and gave their opinion on the issue.... Everything else is just a bunch of formalities.

That's both not the issue here at all mate, and also realistically your dead wrong. Have a read over again.

A summary essentially is you have a referendum result from 2016 that had no clear electorally relevant majority, you now also have issues surrounding if that majority is still their (That's largely though neither here nor there for what i'm discussing), more importantly you have a vote based largely in generational demographics with brexit drawing a significant amoung of support from the elderly, while remain where at the other end of the spectrum. This is a bad foundation. You also have as i've outlined the structural economic issues of the UK compounding the issue (which aren't anything to do with brexit itself, but both sides have inadvertently made the economies performance tied to brexits success in the publics perceptions of if its going to be good or bad).

So with that context in mind, how do you make sure that 5 years down the line once the UK has left the EU, the government doesn't just rejoin it? The ideal scenario would have been for the government/brexiteers to compromise- tie in all parties to brexit, find a consensus on what brexit should mean and build stable support. This hasn't happened though, instead both sides have merely further polarised the debate- that wouldn't be an issue if the 'will of the people' argument used by brexiteers had a clear majority- and importantly bridged in a meaningful way the generations to ensure support for it continued. This hasn't happened at all.

Thus for a sustainable brexit- and remember brexit is a policy decision, one of many that technically successive governments will not need to 'ask' the people about in terms of joining or leaving the EU- it instead being as all policy, one bullet point of many in a manifesto, or indeed later when in power discussed merely in parliament- how then do you ensure that in the short term, the UK merely does not reapply for the EU? Based on the demographics of the 'will of the people' argument then being turned on the former brexiteers themselves.

Essentially- brexit is happening, its done and dusted. Now how do you make sure it stays 'happened'? This is an interesting question that the brexiteers have hidden from thus far. This is concerning also, as for me for instance- i sure as hell within the next 10 years do not want the UK adopting the Euro and lacking an opt-out over key policy areas, but its likely that if (or when in current circumstances) the UK does reapply for EU membership a few years down the line after leaving, this is what we'll have to accept. Which is why i reiterate my claim that the government and brexiteers are utterly incompetent at getting over both their ideological divides, but also their own little civil war to actually pull their thumbs out and work on how to make sure brexit is sustainable- i.e. compromise. Brexit was never going to be a 'win vs lose' dichotomy as if it was, the pro-EU faction would always win, as among other failings we can attributed to Cameron, he purposefully called a referendum on the EU far too early in the political context for leave or remain to actually galvanize a British public who for the majority had been disinterested to say the least in the EU prior to it. Thus indeed even if 'remain' had won- it would be by the same small margins, and indeed they'd be in rather the same situation of an ongoing country-wide dispute among the party and the electorate where their was no clear sustainable winner. We'd have probably seen (Indeed as Farage threatened when he thought leave would lose) another referendum drive within a few years.

So its missing the whole point to say 'it was decided'- yes, but given the UK's political context, for how long?

[caratacus]

That's both not the issue here at all mate, and also realistically your dead wrong. Have a read over again.

A summary essentially is you have a referendum result from 2016 that had no clear electorally relevant majority, you now also have issues surrounding if that majority is still their (That's largely though neither here nor there for what i'm discussing), more importantly you have a vote based largely in generational demographics with brexit drawing a significant amoung of support from the elderly, while remain where at the other end of the spectrum. This is a bad foundation. You also have as i've outlined the structural economic issues of the UK compounding the issue (which aren't anything to do with brexit itself, but both sides have inadvertently made the economies performance tied to brexits success in the publics perceptions of if its going to be good or bad).

There you go, "clear relevant majority" How much majority do you need for a vote to be relevant that wins 60%, 70%, 80%? Politicians that argue that the majority wasn't sufficient in the referendum, come from political parties that formed governments which regularly commanded less than 50% of the vote. I think even Maggie Thatcher even had something like 45% of the vote and never had any sizeable votes north of the border.

You can argue that a majority figure should have been fixed in the referendum, but that would have made such situations for electing governments in elections brought into question would it not. Because you cannot have one rule which makes it harder to receive a majority for leaving the EU and one rule for electing the party to carry it out.

So with that context in mind, how do you make sure that 5 years down the line once the UK has left the EU, the government doesn't just rejoin it? The ideal scenario would have been for the government/brexiteers to compromise- tie in all parties to brexit, find a consensus on what brexit should mean and build stable support. This hasn't happened though, instead both sides have merely further polarised the debate- that wouldn't be an issue if the 'will of the people' argument used by brexiteers had a clear majority- and importantly bridged in a meaningful way the generations to ensure support for it continued. This hasn't happened at all.

Thus for a sustainable brexit- and remember brexit is a policy decision, one of many that technically successive governments will not need to 'ask' the people about in terms of joining or leaving the EU- it instead being as all policy, one bullet point of many in a manifesto, or indeed later when in power discussed merely in parliament- how then do you ensure that in the short term, the UK merely does not reapply for the EU? Based on the demographics of the 'will of the people' argument then being turned on the former brexiteers themselves.

We were never asked about joining a European super state, but if any government attempted to do something similar from a position we were 40 years ago, it wouldn't be in power for long. What was done was achieved by stealth over decades whilst the trade body of the EEC morphed into what the EU is today.

However, it may well be that many who voted for Brexit, might well vote to join the EU in another 10 years time. But only if it reformed, and I think it is more than likely it won't be here in 10 years time than it would be the organisation it should be. Perhaps if those who so vocal in their efforts to keep the UK in the EU, had spent half of their energy into trying to get it reformed, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Some like yourself argue strongly that we shouldn't leave the EU because our economy would suffer, which I guess is the gun held against the hostage's head, oh! that an the prospect of violence in Northern Ireland, which is an appropriate metaphor I guess. Yes, the economy will undoubtedly take a hit but I and many other would still want to leave. The reason is because many feel their identity is being eroded, the national identity of who we are as a people, of our place in the world. It's the equivalent of the UK being part of one of those cult sects. Where you live communally and told you are all better together and never, repeat never allowed to leave.

Essentially- brexit is happening, its done and dusted. Now how do you make sure it stays 'happened'? This is an interesting question that the brexiteers have hidden from thus far. This is concerning also, as for me for instance- i sure as hell within the next 10 years do not want the UK adopting the Euro and lacking an opt-out over key policy areas, but its likely that if (or when in current circumstances) the UK does reapply for EU membership a few years down the line after leaving, this is what we'll have to accept. Which is why i reiterate my claim that the government and brexiteers are utterly incompetent at getting over both their ideological divides, but also their own little civil war to actually pull their thumbs out and work on how to make sure brexit is sustainable- i.e. compromise. Brexit was never going to be a 'win vs lose' dichotomy as if it was, the pro-EU faction would always win, as among other failings we can attributed to Cameron, he purposefully called a referendum on the EU far too early in the political context for leave or remain to actually galvanize a British public who for the majority had been disinterested to say the least in the EU prior to it. Thus indeed even if 'remain' had won- it would be by the same small margins, and indeed they'd be in rather the same situation of an ongoing country-wide dispute among the party and the electorate where their was no clear sustainable winner. We'd have probably seen (Indeed as Farage threatened when he thought leave would lose) another referendum drive within a few years.

So its missing the whole point to say 'it was decided'- yes, but given the UK's political context, for how long?

That's it though isn't it? an intention to kick the can down the road a little further. Perhaps until enough of those old fogies that were fool to vote for their own sovereignty have kicked the can themselves, enough to make that percentage even fewer. I predict a deferral of Brexit and the government doing either one of two things. Either another referendum being declared by a new Corbyn government, guess what the result will be! Or a Brexit produced a Conservative government that enables us to easily join again in another 5 years. You can already see this take shape under May's White paper. The British people need to realise that extracting ourselves from the EU, is like leaving the Moonies, it isn't as easy as putting a cross in a box

British people already voted and gave their opinion on the issue.... Everything else is just a bunch of formalities.

Agreed, this is how it should be, but it isn't.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

There you go, "clear relevant majority" How much majority do you need for a vote to be relevant that wins 60%, 70%, 80%? Politicians that argue that the majority wasn't sufficient in the referendum, come from political parties that formed governments which regularly commanded less than 50% of the vote. I think even Maggie Thatcher even had something like 45% of the vote and never had any sizeable votes north of the border.

You can argue that a majority figure should have been fixed in the referendum, but that would have made such situations for electing governments in elections brought into question would it not. Because you cannot have one rule which makes it harder to receive a majority for leaving the EU and one rule for electing the party to carry it out.

But that's the issue- i'm not saying for the purposes of the referendum that it should be set at 60% or over or whatever. But the fact is you have the brexiteers resting the sustainability of brexit soley on a result that realistically is not sustainable. 60-40 that's better (I'm not arguing that 60% should have been the set by the way- what i'm saying is given the time limits- getting anything remotely clear of a 'majority' for either side was a long shot- hence though we would always be polarised since the referendum). Its not a strong basis to build a policy line on- particularly as has happened- one that instead of creating a consensus, is one in which all factions of all shades of remain and brexiteer have basically just tried to dull doze through their own narrow vision 'at all cost'. There is no way in this current context you can have a brexit that 'lasts'. It needs an actual working majority in both parliament and more importantly among the public- not just a political one.

We were never asked about joining a European super state, but if any government attempted to do something similar from a position we were 40 years ago, it wouldn't be in power for long. What was done was achieved by stealth over decades whilst the trade body of the EEC morphed into what the EU is today.

However, it may well be that many who voted for Brexit, might well vote to join the EU in another 10 years time. But only if it reformed, and I think it is more than likely it won't be here in 10 years time than it would be the organisation it should be. Perhaps if those who so vocal in their efforts to keep the UK in the EU, had spent half of their energy into trying to get it reformed, we wouldn't be where we are today.

You've partly identified the issue though- Remain and Leave, or pro-Eu and anti-Eu are way to basic a term to get across the myriad of perspectives on each side. What's happened effectively for both sides though is a cabal on each in Westminister is driving their narrow visions (Soft brexit, Hard brexit, Remain at all costs)- by hijacking the polarized electorate and pretending that a referendum that essentially should have if their was any want of a long term sustainable relationship where we properly leave the EU, been a consensus of compromise and negotiation- and then article 50- is actually legitimacy for their own perspective. The downside is, this will be their failing as it undermines the actual legitimacy needed for a policy decision to take on any permanence. We currently are now in a place where we'll either do the so-called 'hard brexit' (not what even a majority of leavers wanted) or we remain in the EU/rejoin (Lib-dems and some Remain Tories) but lose our opt-outs and probably have to take on the Euro- which they seem non-fussed about (and which i feel is horrific).

Your right indeed that the British people were only asked 'after the fact' essentially if they wanted EU membership, and that's rather my point- particularly again given the lack of drive to ensure brexits future (instead careers are being put first) that their is absolutely nothing preventing this government or the next from rejoining. To prevent it, Britain needs political reform of a written constitution and a shift to a more direct democratic model- which arguably (as much as i'd want that) will not happen in the next few decades pending some major upheaval (Which was supposed to be brexit- look how that turned out for instigating change).

Some like yourself argue strongly that we shouldn't leave the EU because our economy would suffer, which I guess is the gun held against the hostage's head, oh! that an the prospect of violence in Northern Ireland, which is an appropriate metaphor I guess. Yes, the economy will undoubtedly take a hit but I and many other would still want to leave. The reason is because many feel their identity is being eroded, the national identity of who we are as a people, of our place in the world. It's the equivalent of the UK being part of one of those sects. Where you live communally and told you are all better together and never, repeat never allowed to leave.

I get that, i really do. The issue being that not to put it to personally- its not on you but the brexiteers who feel that, now have to 'sell that' perspective to the rest of the remainers and other leavers in a way that will get them behind it. But government have been so busy infighting, that actually all they've done is widened the gap between not just leave and remain, but the factions within both groups electorally. If the vision isn't 'sold' in a convincing way- its never going to be sustainable, particularly again when there is indeed a generational divide- you have to get on-board new voters- or at least ensure a there is a vocal and significant majority among the younger groups, lest again with changing electoral preferences and 'hot topics' its undone at a later point. The trouble here of course is the UK is not remotely a 'stable' economy- regardless of brexit- with the added impact from the radical changes sweeping across how and why we work, but also in terms of prospects and growing inequality- a lot now can (and will) go wrong with the economy, which will adversely effect the prospects of young people- which governments will pin on brexit- either as you've just said yourself saying 'sovereignty is worth it' (a fair enough stance)- but that by implication means your getting to have to sell it to people already struggling (from domestic policy and the UK's structural issues) and who even a slight impact from brexit (or one linked by government rhetoric) will not exactly be on-board.

The other scenario- is of course Labour (or by some miracile lib-dems or a coalition/whatever) get in at the next election- Labour are running on (for the UK) a fairly radical and ambitious set of economic reforms- equivalent of Thatcher (or Blair arguably)- their will be problems- It took the Falklands to save Thatcher politically and Blair- slightly more complex, but it was perceived a 'good' war was needed to shore up support. Corbyn's Labour will face difficulties- and more than likely much as the Tories managed to politically spin the financial crash as being due to Labours policies (Despite it actually being due to rampant deregulation of the financial sector- which is their bread and butter), Labour will do the same with austerity- and brexit to justify the instability that will follow wide-sweeping reform (or indeed lack of it if conditions are seen as politically non-viable for such an agenda)- its a double whammy legacy of the Tories just waiting for a party to use.

For me, and this might seem weird given as you say, i voted remain based on economic preferences. But brexit is something that's happening, i'd be intrigued if prior to article 50's expiration we halted everything, but that's incredibly unlikely.Thus we'll leave- what's worse than leaving for me, would be a few years down the line to rejoin. With less influence, less of a say, with no opt-outs and the Euro. That's not in keeping with my ideal of a reformed Europe- which would require the UK to be one of its leading forces- a mantle that since brexit we gave up. So for me its pressing that there is an actual sustainable consensus formed- not just in Parliament, but that unites the British people- The trouble is brexit at the moment is essentially the new political football- it has such potential, particularly with the party-centric way its been mishandled that it could effectively be used to bash in opposing parties or internal party factions (You can see this starting in the Labour party with remainers starting again to brief against Corbyn- let alone what's going on in the Blue camp)- this will not create that unity needed, it actively will destroy the chance for it as people become unwilling to compromise. Its one reason i'm so against a 'no deal' being a valid option for us- not just economically, but because it essentially guarantees brexit will have a very short expiry date by both the perceived consequences of it, and the actual economically (but also in terms of convenience for consumers and businesses)- it will be spun by leave and remain groups as one very small faction in the Conservative party of winning and directing brexit, and so discrediting the whole enterprise in terms of building a workable majority.

That's it though isn't it? an intention to kick the can down the road a little further. Perhaps until enough of those old fogies that were fool to vote for their own sovereignty have kicked the can themselves, enough to make that percentage even fewer. I predict a deferral of Brexit and the government doing either one of two things. Either another referendum being declared by a new Corbyn government, guess what the result will be! Or a Brexit produced a Conservative government that enables us to easily join again in another 5 years. You can already see this take shape under May's White paper. The British people need to realise that extracting ourselves from the EU, is like leaving the Moonies, it isn't as easy as putting a cross in a box

I can say that's a fair perspective- i personally don't see it being deferred though, but i can see your second referendum coming around by either Corbyn- though a remain win on the same margins as the leave win would have us essentially in the same situation of political polarization and instability- as naturally a few years on from that, the opposition, or grass-roots will forced a third referendum, and i can't see currently how 'remain' would win a real 'working majority' in a referendum- due to again the polarization of both brexit, but also a Corbyn government (much like Cameron you may have a minority voting just as a 'screw you'). Its also likely indeed that the Conservatives on finishing brexit, will go for ascension again the minute they believe their is more political capital in doing so than leaving, or just as in the past- it'll be a 'policy decision' and thus nothing to do with the public- the mandate being they were elected in to (and i can see the catch phrase now) 'Get on with governing'.

But agreed that brexit isn't as easy as merely the red cross on the paper- and that's i think not really the British peoples fault, but Westminster's fault- as again its up to them if they want to create a sustainable brexit- to stop being ideologically driven, using it to achieve their own vision of brexit, and actually compromise with other leave factions, and indeed remainers and work to sell a consensus vision to the British public- the difficulty here of course is they have arguably no interest- instead its as the referendum was originally intended to deal with- all about political infighting -and even those that do, due to this for the past two years lack the time. Though arguably as i feel, Cameron calling the referendum for party-centric reasons created this problem regardless- as both sides lacked the time to sell their views and get an actually working majority from the electorate- it would have been impossible for remainers too, as i think we'll find out if they do 'win'- it'll be a short-term victory in the greater 'war' over EU membership.

Essentially i guess Cameron's putting 'party first' in the referendum- broke the chances of either side from the start getting a politically sustainable outcome, and by doing so i'd go so far as to say has set the scene for a good decade or more (pending radical change somehow) of political polarization in the UK political system- both among the parties, but also among the electorate. What would be interesting (if now alternate history) was if the 'UKIP effect' was instead of being outmanouvered by the Tories with essentially a 'quick referendum'- was allowed to continue- and a natural progression to coalition or governance on their part (if possible- that's always the question- UKIP had a lot of reforming to do prior to that) would result in a referendum outcome which was sustainable. I suspect it would have. Though maybe i'm being unfair to the Conservatives here.

EDIT: On a more amusing note- did anyone else catch May yesterday in front of the select committee- particularly the part about Tariffs under her own Chequers plan and at what point they will be collected and how.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz3lFR4KKuE

Check out roughly 11 mins in- but essentially May is either an idiot, or she doesn't understand what in fact she's proposing 'the important thing is the UK gets the money'.....yes....but how is what's being asked...HOW do we get the money due.

Its actually frightening she's directing this.

[Aexodus]

If leave winning by 52% means the wishes of the minority of remain voters must be heard, then I doubt that had remain won the referendum by 52% we would be talking about partially leaving the EU to appease the losers in that situation.

A summary essentially is you have a referendum result from 2016 that had no clear electorally relevant majority,

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you there Dante, there was a majority, and such an attitude as shown above gives a huge advantage to the remain side, as they apparently only need less than 50% to win.

We didn’t agree to set the required majority at 55,60,65, it was a simple majority and we got that. People can’t say the referendum was run wrong after the fact.

Remember David Cameron’s words “If the leave vote wins, we will be leaving the European Union, no second negotiation and no second referendum”

[swabian]

The question has been answered. Whilt thou not leave?

Sorry to say, but: You are becoming an embarassment and you need to leave. How much more time do you require? Do your people a favour and get it over with quickly.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

If leave winning by 52% means the wishes of the minority of remain voters must be heard, then I doubt that had remain won the referendum by 52% we would be talking about partially leaving the EU to appease the losers in that situation.

We wouldn't be talking about partially leaving indeed- and that's the big problem. Both sides are innately flawed in terms of building a sustainable solution due to the contexts of brexit and the fact both are so polarised. What would have happened if Remain was as Farage said, the political infighting would continue, and another referendum would be on the agenda rather promptly. The brexit referendum given that current context would never have been likely to get a working majority for either side- and even after that as we've found both sides would descend into facitonalism- further complicating the process.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you there Dante, there was a majority, and such an attitude as shown above gives a huge advantage to the remain side, as they apparently only need less than 50% to win.

We didn’t agree to set the required majority at 55,60,65, it was a simple majority and we got that. People can’t say the referendum was run wrong after the fact.

Remember David Cameron’s words “If the leave vote wins, we will be leaving the European Union, no second negotiation and no second referendum”

I get what your saying mate, but i think i'm not being clear or getting across properly, so i apologize if so.

'Relevant majority' is key- and no 52% is not that, as while morally- its a win, it doesn't mean anything for political sustainability over the next few years- its enough for a referendum to pass- i accept that. Its not nearly enough to ensure the legitimacy of brexit lasts in the short term though, let alone long term, its politically unstable, particularly if both sides are already (as Boris has indeed) talking about a second referendum to 'decide the matter'- it highlights just how much the first one, while securing brexit- is incapable of keeping it.

So what i'm saying is not that 'leave didn't really win'- i'm asking about realistically in the UK's political and electoral contexts- how do you make brexit into a long-term position? How do you make it sustainable given the referendum result, demographic changes and the past 2 years of incompetent infighting? Leave won- and morally in a perfect world your indeed right. But in reality you've got to somehow now 'win' the support of the public, lest next election we rejoin the EU- the mandate for which simply being a win, or indeed we rejoin a bit later down the line as merely part of foreign policy- which requires only Parliamentary discussion.

The arithmetic is not in favour of brexit 'lasting' unless something radical happens that can bridge divides and gain public support. Again ideally we can 'the vote solved it'- but it didn't as their has been no attempt to actually gain support for it. The legitimacy has been (stupidly in my view given this) based on 'will of the people' as a cop-out for building a solid support- now what happens to put it bluntly in 5 or 10 years time when the contexts i mentioned previously come to bear, and the electorate was now a clearer majority for pro-remain- you think that the Conservatives or Labour won't capitalize on that, either to get into power, keep it or use it as a 'get out of jail freecard' to again have a body to blame, and security in not having to take sole responsibility. So brexit itself- sure is happening, but how once we've left (Or as Caractacus points out, maybe before) and thus fulfilled the 'will of the people' do we prevent the UK rejoining the EU if the parliamentary arithmetic was against leaving, and now the public is generally pro-EU? Brexiteers need to somehow 'sell' brexit and have a radical domestic agenda that improves the standard of living or prospects of the people, to try and gain a 'relevant' majority

The issue with David Cameron- not merely because he said the same thing in the Scottish referendum...and now that once again is on the cards , but also- he literally jumped ship, the Conservative party then embarked upon a very different vision domestically and in terms of brexit- thus his promises (Much like devo-max in Scotland) have no legitimacy currently, unless the Tory party choose to honour them (and that will depend on which faction is in control of the party/ if it even still exists in the next 5 years), and bearing in mind even then- Labour didn't.

And again- the big issues- even if remain had won- yes we'd still be in this situation, because they too would have in all likelihood that i can see, be unable to secure a 'relevant majority' either. The difference being that in terms of parliament things would be slightly easier, as remain MP's far outnumber brexiteers and so getting policy through, even with the inevitable infighting that would have occurred, would have been slightly easier than now (Which essentially is a zombie parliament)...though probably not because in domestic politics their is a huge gulf now between the big two parties. But Cameron's referendum- was a disaster, not because leave won or whatever- but because it ruined the chances for remain or leavers to actually have a stable footing for whichever side won. He put party first and pre-emptied a debate that while hot in parliament, most of the public was only just becoming aware of from a position of not giving a damn mostly. In doing this he's royally destroyed the political stability of the UK for quite a while by scuppering the chances for either side.

The question has been answered. Whilt thou not leave?

Sorry to say, but: You are becoming an embarassment and you need to leave. How much more time do you require? Do your people a favour and get it over with quickly.

Given how things are going, i think it may be likely an extension is begged for beyond the 2020 line, given that May's plan won't even be able to be implemented by that point (her own words) in terms of customs collection.

Also particularly if either she is toppled or her government, an extension will likely be sought. Though the EU given yesterdays reaction are being very careful not to topple her, lest negotiations have to start all over again. But that's when you know your negotiating position is ed- when your opponents are actually trying to keep you in power...

So yeah...welcome to the mess that is the UK . Historically we've been inefficient administrators (arguably due to the way the British state developed- so its not a bad or good thing overall...just bad at the moment), and apparently that hasn't changed since we joined the EU.

[swabian]

Why so bitter?

Do you think i saw the Brexit coming? Do you think i saw Trump coming? I foresaw nothing of that and i'm struck just like you are. I'm not gloating, i'm myself trying to sort out things anew.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Why so bitter?

Do you think i saw the Brexit coming? Do you think i saw Trump coming? I foresaw nothing of that and i'm struck just like you are. I'm not gloating, i'm myself trying to sort out things anew.

I think you may have misread what i've said mate- no bitterness intended, nor did i accuse you of gloating. Or mention anything about brexits inevitability or trump.

It would appear a change of tune has taken place among the more hard-line brexiteers:

A leading Brexiteer has suggested it could take 50 years to judge whether Brexit has been an economic success amid fears quitting the European Union will lead to a downturn.The influential Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who chairs the European Research Group of backbench Tories, was pressed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News about whether he would quit if the “economy does take a hit next year” when Brexit happens.
Rees-Mogg insisted the full impact will not be known for “years to come” as he hailed leaving the EU as the “greatest opportunity, economically, for this country”.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0de86f48e3566

Which appears to be consistent with their overall change of stance-

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-mogg-dividend

Another specific example being one of the key Brexiteers in Cabinet, Gove- who recently went on record saying that the Brexiteers had been wrong to soke fears of mass Turkish migration to the UK upon their impending EU ascension:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...igration-fears

Essentially if we were to be cynical, its to avoid the blame they'll personally receive from most in the face of any economic downturn, particularly in case of a 'no deal' brexit- so its a political cop-out. But its significant as its a far-cry from the early rhetoric of billions saved, trade deals easy and we'll be a success in the mid-term. We're now talking about projections which are essentially generational. The implication being life will be pretty crap for the rest or majority of most voters lives on either side, if we're to take this in with the other comments surrounding the admittance that their will be an economic cost. This can be spun of course as either due to an inevitable consequence of brexit- or in terms of more certainty- the cost of the Conservatives management of the brexit process. I think if we're now into 'saving own skin' territory, we're probably going to witness the collapse of their electoral share come the short-term after brexit.

On the other hand, the rhetoric and the 'hard-brexiteers' new found agreeance (or even appreciation) of the idea of a second referendum- points towards this laying the groundwork for exactly that as political careers can possibly be saved by a new 'will of the people', or indeed a referendum result that confirms we're leaving- and thus it being harder to then blame the Conservatives and/or particularly party factions.

Regardless though- its a stark change in rhetoric and the death of the originally proposed 'sunny uplands and economic prosperity' upon brexit vision.

[Cope]

The Guardian is misrepresenting Rees-Mogg's comments. The article you sourced effectively contradicts itself in the first paragraph.

"In line with other Brexiters, Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have abandoned any notion of the UK being better off after Brexit. Of course he still spouts verbiage about Brexit providing a great economic opportunity for the country, but when pushed, as he was recently, it seems clear that he no longer believes leaving the EU will bring us economic benefit and says we may be waiting 50 years for the "Brexit dividend", if it ever arrives at all."

Rees Mogg does not simultaneously believe that leaving the European Union will provide "a great economic opportunity" to the United Kingdom whilst also thinking that the country will be no better off post-Brexit. No person pursues an economic opportunity in the belief that their financial position shan't be improved: if they do not see an opportunity as viable they would not pursue it. So already we can dismiss the author's assertion as incoherent.

During the C4 interview the Guardian writer is referring to, Rees-Mogg repeatedly stated his belief that the United Kingdom leaving the European Union will present significant economic opportunities for the country. If said opportunities are capitalized upon, Rees-Mogg believes that there could be immediate economic benefits. When questioned further however, Rees-Mogg conceded that as one could be wrong about any future event, he too could be wrong about the impact of Britain leaving the European Union. The interviewer then proceeded to construct a hypothetical scenario in which Rees-Mogg's predictions were indeed wrong and the British economy suffered an immediate downturn post-Brexit. To this, Rees-Mogg replied first that the cause of any such downturn wouldn't necessarily be the fault of Britain leaving the European Union, second that the "full" economic impact of Brexit would become apparent over the course of the next fifty years and third that he would be judged by the electorate for his actions.

The Guardian (predictably) entirely ignored the context of Rees-Mogg's remarks. The author of the article effectively used a segment of the conversation between Guru-Murthy and Rees-Mogg in which both parties pondered the consequences of Rees-Mogg being proven incorrect as evidence that he had actually been proven incorrect. And that's how it managed to spin this false narrative that Rees-Mogg "seems" to believe that the United Kingdom will be no better off after Brexit and that it will take fifty years before any economic progress is realized. Consequently the internet is now awash with people repeating these false claims.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The Guardian is misrepresenting Rees-Mogg's comments. The article you sourced effectively contradicts itself in the first paragraph.

"In line with other Brexiters, Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have abandoned any notion of the UK being better off after Brexit. Of course he still spouts verbiage about Brexit providing a great economic opportunity for the country, but when pushed, as he was recently, it seems clear that he no longer believes leaving the EU will bring us economic benefit and says we may be waiting 50 years for the "Brexit dividend", if it ever arrives at all."

Rees Mogg does not simultaneously believe that leaving the European Union will provide "a great economic opportunity" to the United Kingdom whilst also thinking that the country will be no better off post-Brexit. No person pursues an economic opportunity in the belief that their financial position shan't be improved: if they do not see an opportunity as viable they would not pursue it. So already we can dismiss the author's assertion as incoherent.

During the C4 interview the Guardian writer is referring to, Rees-Mogg repeatedly stated his belief that the United Kingdom leaving the European Union will present significant economic opportunities for the country. If said opportunities are capitalized upon, Rees-Mogg believes that there could be immediate economic benefits. When questioned further however, Rees-Mogg conceded that as one could be wrong about any future event, he too could be wrong about the impact of Britain leaving the European Union. The interviewer then proceeded to construct a hypothetical scenario in which Rees-Mogg's predictions were indeed wrong and the British economy suffered an immediate downturn post-Brexit. To this, Rees-Mogg replied first that the cause of any such downturn wouldn't necessarily be the fault of Britain leaving the European Union, second that the "full" economic impact of Brexit would become apparent over the course of the next fifty years and third that he would be judged by the electorate for his actions.

The Guardian (predictably) entirely ignored the context of Rees-Mogg's remarks. The author of the article effectively used a segment of the conversation between Guru-Murthy and Rees-Mogg in which both parties pondered the consequences of Rees-Mogg being proven incorrect as evidence that he had actually been proven incorrect. And that's how it managed to spin this false narrative that Rees-Mogg "seems" to believe that the United Kingdom will be no better off after Brexit and that it will take fifty years before any economic progress is realized. Consequently the internet is now awash with people repeating these false claims.

There's spin in the article indeed- but there is a wider picture, which this provides evidence for in a U-turn on the rhetoric surrounding the brexit opportunities both from Moggs, and from Boris- now this i'd put down to the immediate political context of the Conservatives have failed to negotiate amongst themselves, let alone the EU- hence why it seems now highly likely their indeed will be no economic benefit from brexit for the UK (This position in fairness is something most leave voters and brexiteers acknowledge- again though the emphasis varies from it being due to brexit being about sovereignty primarily- so a fair trade, or that its due to the past wasted 2 years). - Or indeed as i tend to perceive- the UK economy is structurally inadequate already due to existing conditions (Private debt crisis being a time bomb to main one of many issues), brexit regardless will thus have an adverse impact upon it as we'd never be in a position to properly capitalize upon any advantages in the first place bearing in mind the prevailing political context (The upholding of environmental, working protections and goods quality and lack of mandate to deregulate services- all good things in my view, but which do make a 'running free' WTO Britain have its hands tied, particularly in regard to a US deal (Thankfully again in my view ).

Gove, Boris, Davis and Moggs originally espoused the immediate economic benefits- Davis of course with the infamous 'Trade deal easiest thing in the world'. The fact that there is a political backing away from this position highlighted over the last few months is significant as the parliamentary arithmetic shifts. In regards to the article- i don't agree here mate that its being misrepresented- spun sure, but i originally watched the interview directly- the fact Moggs is entertaining the notion and willing to talk about it, speaks volumes from the earlier heady days of the first year of negotiations. Also its key to note that he's placing a far greater emphasis now on the electorate being the decider for if brexit will be a success or failure and talks about brexit in terms of its 'potential' (as opposed to the brexiteers earlier position of its 'actual')- formally as mentioned it the rhetoric was it 'was' going to be a great thing for this country- not that it might be- this is political distancing, which is rather sensible given how things are going.

You add this to the growing support among brexiteers for a second referendum, and comments from Raab and Gove and you see indeed that their is a wider picture that the brexiteer hardliners are getting ready to shift blame for what will happen (Again not saying this was because of the idea of brexit, but the way the Conservatives have both 'owned' it as their baby, and then failed completely with it over the past two years- the 'triumph' of chequers essentially highlighting the complete waste the last two years have been...and then even that fell apart as they descended into infighting once again, hence May now having to do a whistle stop tour around the country to beseech Conservative associations to support her).

At this point given the governments incompetence, and based on the kind of deal we're going to get (Which is still better economically at least than WTO terms- but politically will be more difficult as it loses brexit's 'big sell' of sovereignty) i think its fair to say the Conservative party has failed to do brexit (as i'd argue probably all political parties would have in the end- given as i mentioned in a previous post that brexit in its current context is not a sustainable policy decision, given the liklihood of the UK rejoining a few years down the line, but without our opt-outs and influence and probably i suspect the euro)- and the brexiteers are partly responsible for this in terms of not bothering to rally support behind brexit- relying instead of the short-term mantra of 'will of the people'- the legitimacy of it being an issue then as it immediately puts brexit into relying on consistent majority support on its own merits as spelled out by the Leave Campaign to be sustained over the next decade, which will probably lead to five years from now the same 'will of the people' can of worms being used in turn to rejoin. Also what i'd blame the Conservative brexiteers for is a lack of compromising (a charge i would also lay at remain Tories)- all this has culminated in the incompetence of now, so i'm not surprised we're seeing a downplaying of the previous statements and a shift to distancing the decisions made since brexit from various brexiteers (and indeed i think we'll see it generally among the Conservatives to avoid the electoral cost)- indeed its noticeable in the rhetorical use of backbench Conservatives pointing out the governments brexit has 'not gone as hoped' (Hannan), or that its not making the most of the opportunity- all arguably valid points but also a clear indication of preperations to wash hands with the outcome, for which the entire Conservative party is responsible for- and i'd go so far as to say all MP's, given the lack of any real holding to account for the mess the Conservatives have created.

[caratacus]

Another specific example being one of the key Brexiteers in Cabinet, Gove- who recently went on record saying that the Brexiteers had been wrong to soke fears of mass Turkish migration to the UK upon their impending EU ascension:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...igration-fears

Essentially if we were to be cynical, its to avoid the blame they'll personally receive from most in the face of any economic downturn, particularly in case of a 'no deal' brexit- so its a political cop-out. But its significant as its a far-cry from the early rhetoric of billions saved, trade deals easy and we'll be a success in the mid-term. We're now talking about projections which are essentially generational. The implication being life will be pretty crap for the rest or majority of most voters lives on either side, if we're to take this in with the other comments surrounding the admittance that their will be an economic cost. This can be spun of course as either due to an inevitable consequence of brexit- or in terms of more certainty- the cost of the Conservatives management of the brexit process. I think if we're now into 'saving own skin' territory, we're probably going to witness the collapse of their electoral share come the short-term after brexit.

On the other hand, the rhetoric and the 'hard-brexiteers' new found agreeance (or even appreciation) of the idea of a second referendum- points towards this laying the groundwork for exactly that as political careers can possibly be saved by a new 'will of the people', or indeed a referendum result that confirms we're leaving- and thus it being harder to then blame the Conservatives and/or particularly party factions.

Regardless though- its a stark change in rhetoric and the death of the originally proposed 'sunny uplands and economic prosperity' upon brexit vision.

The Brexit referendum was to put pressure on the EU for the UK to gain concessions, it didn't work and in the end David Cameron instigated a public vote, the result of which he and many in the established political class were not expecting. Essentially the question was do you wish to leave or remain within the European Union. The result was to leave.

Whatever politicians said or wrote during the campaign leading up to that vote made a jot of difference. Attempts to discredit the result by saying, "well people didn't know what they vote for" or that they were given false promises by the leave campaign and it mislead people is quite frankly, utter rubbish. People knew what they were voting for and want it to be carried out. They weren't expecting "sunny uplands" promised or not.

If the EU offers a deal on trade great! if they don't it would be bad for us and bad for them. But such an attitude, illustrates precisely the reason why people voted the way they did. I think if you ask the majority of those in the UK, the opinion is that we won't be bullied into accepting control from Brussels using economic leverage.

Yes, I believe you are right, the Conservative party is scarred of the consequences of Brexit, it's the reason they haven't undertaken a leadership challenge. Nobody least of all Boris Johnson wants to be in no 10 if things get rough and they will, in the short term be difficult. Even an ardent Brexiteer knows that, whatever positive rhetoric is said.

But that is when you need true leaders, and I'm afraid there isn't such a person amongst any one of those MPs who currently sit in Parliament. That is the real problem more than anything associated with Brexit. It’s no good steering a ship away from a course you don’t want to take, into what could (initially at least) be troubled waters, if the captain is trying to row in the opposite direction and the rest of the crew cannot hoist the sails. After 2 years from the vote, that is the present situation we have I’m afraid.

As for the Guardian its a rag, like every other British newspaper. It ceased to be a truely Left leaning paper a long time ago and is very much pro-establishment news. This false story is a typical example of poor journalism, as @epIc_fail has pointed out.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The Brexit referendum was to put pressure on the EU for the UK to gain concessions, it didn't work and in the end David Cameron instigated a public vote, the result of which he and many in the established political class were not expecting. Essentially the question was do you wish to leave or remain within the European Union. The result was to leave.

Whatever politicians said or wrote during the campaign leading up to that vote made a jot of difference. Attempts to discredit the result by saying, "well people didn't know what they vote for" or that they were given false promises by the leave campaign and it mislead people is quite frankly, utter rubbish. People knew what they were voting for and want it to be carried out. They weren't expecting "sunny uplands" promised or not.

If the EU offers a deal on trade great! if they don't it would be bad for us and bad for them. But such an attitude, illustrates precisely the reason why people voted the way they did. I think if you ask the majority of those in the UK, the opinion is that we won't be blackmailed into accepting control from Brussels using economic leverage.

Yes, I believe you are right, the Conservative party is scarred of the consequences of Brexit, it's the reason they haven't undertaken a leadership challenge. Nobody least of all Boris Johnson wants to be in no 10 if things get rough and they will, in the short term be difficult. Even an ardent Brexiteer knows that, whatever positive rhetoric is said.

But that is when you need true leaders, and I'm afraid there isn't such a person amongst any one of those MPs who currently sit in Parliament. That is the real problem more than anything associated with Brexit. It’s no good steering a ship away from a course you don’t want to take, into what could (initially at least) be troubled waters, if the captain is trying to row in the opposite direction and the rest of the crew cannot hoist the sails. After 2 years from the vote, that is the present situation we have I’m afraid.

As for the Guardian its a rag, like every other British newspaper. It ceased to be a truely Left leaning paper a long time ago and is very much pro-establishment news. This false story is a typical example of poor journalism, as @epIc_fail has pointed out.

I'd agree that partly the reason was to gain concessions from the EU, but also a large factor was the domestic politics of the Conservative party- to both 'fend off' UKIP (Bearing in mind the Conservatives have rarely had a 'safe' majority and in the aftermath of the coalition UKIP cutting into their vote share wasn't exactly welcome- also of course the influential euro scptic faction with who from Thatcher to now have been a bane of successive pms- Cameron gambled on being able to force them into line, and lost big time.

I don't believe those who voted for brexit 'didn't know what they voted for'- i think the matter is incredibly complex- hence why both remain and leave is divided into so many competing sub-factions all with different visions and conceptions and indeed reasons for wanting to stay or remain. Its why i don't disparage those who picked soverignty over the economy- though i take issue with what some brexiteers did during the referendum and indeed after (and only just are rolling back from) which is make use of poor economics to try and 'prove' they'll be a benefit as if it was a key certainty. This is where the sunny uplands gets involved- as during the referendum- its campaigning- politicians to try and get what they want- but after it, the 'sunny uplands' conception continued among some for a good long while, which had an adverse impact upon brexit i feel as the 'care free' attitude to it undermined legitimate debate about preparations. Though of course i think the fact you and i both write off political campaign promises cynically (and rightly alas) shows that the UK has a major issue with accountability, and i mean this generally not just with the Leave side.

In terms of the deal and attitudes. I don't quite agree. The trouble of this process is the Conservatives essentially ideologically charged the trade talks- so instead of being on economic matters as they should be of pragmatism and 'best for both'- the 'red lines' created hampered this by adding an overarching (and much debated) political dimension which was grounded as the first and fore most consideration. Hence why i do agree with you that a trade deal would be great, but it won't electorally now as it will displease a significant minority from any faction- be it brexiteers who wanted for instance the power to forge our own agreements independently - with an eye to quality, or those who wanted less regulation, or those who wanted as Hannan implied to be still part of the common market like Norway (and we won't even go into the myriad of remain stances ). But domestically this means turmoil for the UK. The issue for me economically while both the EU and UK will suffer, its us that will suffer more- and so its rather frustrating when we have that looming over that we still have a narrative of blind optimism, when technically the EU holds the sword here in this regard- and what's worse our own view that 'Well Germany car manufacturers will cause problems- has failed as May's idea of sending ministers out to sound-out individual states like Germany, France, Italy etc- all came back with them committed to the EU line- its been a downright shoddy negotiation from our angle, and i don't think it inevitably had to be that way.

I think the majority at this point, polling and such considered, and the now widening acceptance among leavers for a second referendum is far more up in the air:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...exit-deal.html

42% of voters vs 40 now want that, and that's from all camps. Its been steadily rising apparently due to the way brexit has been handled. So i think what we might find is again a close call (which wouldn't help things as we discussed earlier). But the fact a second referendum is back on the table, over support for just walking away, i think shows that the economy is beginning to take precedence (And i would put the reason why being not necessarily predictions about the cost of leaving the EU- but the domestic front of under-inflation wage rises- effectively cuts, and the collapse of public services by an incompetent domestic economic policy, which has people worried).

No arguments from me there, i think your spot on about the reason why their has been no leadership challenge from Boris or anyone- the short term is looking rough and that's political suicide to preside over that- hence my contention here with even Moggs politically changing tack, which again is sensible but does show the shift in rhetoric we've had.

As you say, we do lack true leaders in Parliament, i believe a common complaint now is that at a point when we need a statesman, we lack any viable candidates. Their is no unifying force who can bring the various factions together, and no one with the want to try, because it would involve compromise or cunning (both probably) and that is lacking, instead its ambition and ideological-led fantatiscm which i think will be the defining feature of the 'zombie parliament' we currently have. Its where arguably FPTP has failed us the past few elections, because it doesn't work when every back-bencher counts and has a degree of influence that actually prevents the formation of policy (but then we'll get me started on the need for PR etc ). So yeah agreed with you there.

I agree the Guardian is no longer a traditional left paper, i'm unsure what the Huff post is. And indeed Britain generally has a major media problem, not helped now by the government attempting again to restrict access to social media platforms under the guise of 'fake news'- which while sure i can see is an issue, the state stepping in to decide what is and isn't 'fake news'- is not the way to deal with this, as much like the Snoopers charter its a slippery slope and indeed especially here 'fake news' can easily be subjective.

EDIT: Apologies- the post turned out far longer than i expected it too, a consistent failing of mine

[Cope]

There's spin in the article indeed- but there is a wider picture, which this provides evidence for in a U-turn on the rhetoric surrounding the brexit opportunities both from Moggs, and from Boris- now this i'd put down to the immediate political context of the Conservatives have failed to negotiate amongst themselves, let alone the EU- hence why it seems now highly likely their indeed will be no economic benefit from brexit for the UK (This position in fairness is something most leave voters and brexiteers acknowledge- again though the emphasis varies from it being due to brexit being about sovereignty primarily- so a fair trade, or that its due to the past wasted 2 years). - Or indeed as i tend to perceive- the UK economy is structurally inadequate already due to existing conditions (Private debt crisis being a time bomb to main one of many issues), brexit regardless will thus have an adverse impact upon it as we'd never be in a position to properly capitalize upon any advantages in the first place bearing in mind the prevailing political context (The upholding of environmental, working protections and goods quality and lack of mandate to deregulate services- all good things in my view, but which do make a 'running free' WTO Britain have its hands tied, particularly in regard to a US deal (Thankfully again in my view ).

Gove, Boris, Davis and Moggs originally espoused the immediate economic benefits- Davis of course with the infamous 'Trade deal easiest thing in the world'. The fact that there is a political backing away from this position highlighted over the last few months is significant as the parliamentary arithmetic shifts. In regards to the article- i don't agree here mate that its being misrepresented- spun sure, but i originally watched the interview directly- the fact Moggs is entertaining the notion and willing to talk about it, speaks volumes from the earlier heady days of the first year of negotiations. Also its key to note that he's placing a far greater emphasis now on the electorate being the decider for if brexit will be a success or failure and talks about brexit in terms of its 'potential' (as opposed to the brexiteers earlier position of its 'actual')- formally as mentioned it the rhetoric was it 'was' going to be a great thing for this country- not that it might be- this is political distancing, which is rather sensible given how things are going.

The articles you have cited do not "provide evidence for a U-turn on the rhetoric surrounding Brexit" from Rees-Mogg. If you watch the interview the Guardian article is reporting on, you will see that at the termination of the segment concerning the hypothetical scenario of an immediate economic downturn, Rees-Mogg states that "the advantages of Brexit, I happen to think, will come through relatively quickly", but that the outcome will be determined by post-Brexit government policy. It is a self-evident misrepresentation to argue that Rees-Mogg either does not believe this or believed something different during the Brexit campaign.

You add this to the growing support among brexiteers for a second referendum, and comments from Raab and Gove and you see indeed that their is a wider picture that the brexiteer hardliners are getting ready to shift blame for what will happen (Again not saying this was because of the idea of brexit, but the way the Conservatives have both 'owned' it as their baby, and then failed completely with it over the past two years- the 'triumph' of chequers essentially highlighting the complete waste the last two years have been...and then even that fell apart as they descended into infighting once again, hence May now having to do a whistle stop tour around the country to beseech Conservative associations to support her).

At this point given the governments incompetence, and based on the kind of deal we're going to get (Which is still better economically at least than WTO terms- but politically will be more difficult as it loses brexit's 'big sell' of sovereignty) i think its fair to say the Conservative party has failed to do brexit (as i'd argue probably all political parties would have in the end- given as i mentioned in a previous post that brexit in its current context is not a sustainable policy decision, given the liklihood of the UK rejoining a few years down the line, but without our opt-outs and influence and probably i suspect the euro)- and the brexiteers are partly responsible for this in terms of not bothering to rally support behind brexit- relying instead of the short-term mantra of 'will of the people'- the legitimacy of it being an issue then as it immediately puts brexit into relying on consistent majority support on its own merits as spelled out by the Leave Campaign to be sustained over the next decade, which will probably lead to five years from now the same 'will of the people' can of worms being used in turn to rejoin. Also what i'd blame the Conservative brexiteers for is a lack of compromising (a charge i would also lay at remain Tories)- all this has culminated in the incompetence of now, so i'm not surprised we're seeing a downplaying of the previous statements and a shift to distancing the decisions made since brexit from various brexiteers (and indeed i think we'll see it generally among the Conservatives to avoid the electoral cost)- indeed its noticeable in the rhetorical use of backbench Conservatives pointing out the governments brexit has 'not gone as hoped' (Hannan), or that its not making the most of the opportunity- all arguably valid points but also a clear indication of preperations to wash hands with the outcome, for which the entire Conservative party is responsible for- and i'd go so far as to say all MP's, given the lack of any real holding to account for the mess the Conservatives have created.

I'm sorry for your demoralization but it is to be expected: it has, after all, been the intention of the media you read to ferment such an attitude. I shan't deny that I too was hoping for greater unity and progress, but it was fairly obvious from the moment that May lost her majority that there would be gridlock in Parliament over the United Kingdom's exit. This has merely encouraged the hysteria on the Remain side (which includes the institution of the European Union) which now imagines it has an opportunity "to put the genie back in the bottle" so to speak.

That said, it remains extraordinarily difficult to predict what the eventual outcome of this will be. Ironically, it is perfectly possible that had May won a strong majority she'd have had the support to "fudge" Brexit - which I now believe may well have been her intention all along.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The articles you have cited do not "provide evidence for a U-turn on the rhetoric surrounding Brexit" from Rees-Mogg. If you watch the interview the Guardian article is reporting on, you will see that at the termination of the segment concerning the hypothetical scenario of an immediate economic downturn, Rees-Mogg states that "the advantages of Brexit, I happen to think, will come through relatively quickly", but that the outcome will be determined by post-Brexit government policy. It is a self-evident misrepresentation to argue that Rees-Mogg either does not believe this or believed something different during the Brexit campaign.

I'm not sure here, the key part of the interview for me is this- excuse my paraphrasing out the 'tittle bits' of 'come on'- but:

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time"

C4: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

That is a very different answer than what generally has been given out before over brexit- It could be Moggs is being realistic about the economic impact, in contrast to Boris and co's extremely sunny outlook. The fact Moggs your right does indeed later point out that he believes brexit to have immediate benefits isn't the issue, indeed its expected, but this part plus as you point out his emphasis on both the people deciding if brexit is a success or failure, and also the outcome of it will be determined by a post-brexit government, is political distancing that previously we hadn't heard from brexiteers. In fairness to you and Moggs though i will say that i am perhaps being harsh in terms of using his example here to support the larger case (replete with Hannon, Gove, Davis and Boris's comments on Brexit recently) that their is a 'scaling back' of the ownership of brexit by its architects- Moggs was never one to extoll wildly how everything will somehow suddenly be amazing- so i'll give him his dues there.

EDIT: If i am misinterpreting this i do apologize- though i sincerely believe i'm not- but i'm not so arrogant (Only a bit ) to admit when i've made a mistake or try and cover it up with word-play and goal post shifting. I do see your point, but i just think that regardless of the expected statement of support, its significant that we have here what i see as political distancing from the consequences of brexit- and that is a lack of ownership i do understand considering this is in the context of the Chequers speech- which has seen May seize the brexit agenda for the first time in a rather different way to what brexiteers like Moggs was hoping for- so its understandable to want to start emphasizing distance to the current process as a 'not what i envisaged' stance, as a fair few Conservative brexiteers have briefed exactly that against May already.

I'm sorry for your demoralization but it is to be expected: it has, after all, been the intention of the media you read to ferment such an attitude. I shan't deny that I too was hoping for greater unity and progress, but it was fairly obvious from the moment that May lost her majority that there would be gridlock in Parliament over the United Kingdom's exit. This has merely encouraged the hysteria on the Remain side (which includes the institution of the European Union) which now imagines it has an opportunity "to put the genie back in the bottle" so to speak.

That said, it remains extraordinarily difficult to predict what the eventual outcome of this will be. Ironically, it is perfectly possible that had May won a strong majority she'd have had the support to "fudge" Brexit - which I now believe may well have been her intention all along.

I appreciate it But i wanted say demoralized is the right word- i've expected it to be a disaster since the Conservatives assumed full ownership of it and eschewed the fact their was little political capital and actively cut out openness and transparency from the process, you remember i'm sure the endless whining of not wanting to disclose their aims and how they would manage brexit to parliamentary scrutiny because they didn't want to 'reveal their hand'- turns out they had no hand- they were covering for the fact there was never any actual clue on their part.

I disagree on the media coverage of brexit- from my perspective we have the majority of the print media being very supportive of brexit (But indeed not of May)- even going so far as to try and shut down democratic debate, which was ridiculous- with the whole 'traitors' and 'will of the people' arguments- which if you face going through my ramblings and/or need a sleep aid at any point (though i don't begrudge you mate if for some reason you choose to forgo that!) i mentioned in the posts on the previous page and the top here how it was a stupid idea to try and forget building a consensus (for both the media and brexiteer mps ) and instead rely on a mandate with no long term sustainability- eschewing what was actually needed- which was after the vote to build the legitimate basis of a brexit that lasts by convincing MP's but more importantly a very divided electorate. The same of course goes for Remain leaning MP's and media. And ultimate blame can be assigned to Cameron for putting party politics first and trying to rush a referendum in the hopes of an easy win, to then lose it on an issue the majority of the UK public didn't care about originally- it meant the referendum was always going to be close, no matter who won and political turmoil was always going to ensure due to this regardless of remain or leave- i'm sure we all remember Farage, who quite fairly pointed out he'd seek a second referendum in quick succession if the first came out with 'Remain'. Add to this the UK's current domestic economic context (which is dire and has been ignored alas) and you have that brexit for remain or leave, was always going to be bad for us- Note though i'm not saying leaving the EU itself was always going to be a disaster- just that it was pretty much certain given the UK's domestic context at the time of the referendum- there is indeed out there a very good plan for brexit with an economic plan that makes sense and a timescale that benefits all- its been largely ignored after the referendum though due to the Conservatives as far as i can tell essentially being incompetent and going into melt-down (and that was before May called her GE).

But indeed, i won't knock your optimism, its more i don't share it given these contexts. I think a big issue as i mentioned is that far from needing greater progress and unity- the past two years is that we haven't had any actual progress on either- Its been a Conservative game in power-politics with each other, plus attempting to shore up their parties support over the country and building a consensus- and here is where i'd hold the brexiteers to account- as i mentioned in avoiding the task of building an actual stable consensus, to relying on 'will of the people'- which as a basis for legitimacy was poor given the outcome and leaves it open to later reversal pending a second referendum, or as i pointed out in an earlier post last page- the next government upon leaving, simply taking us back into the EU...but with the disaster that we'll have to adopt the euro and will lose our opt-outs (which is not something i want at all- as i said, multiple factions each side i'm a former remainer who believed in a two-tier EU and wants nothing to do with currency union). But due to the lack of creating unity (and it is a political task- its a pipe dream that for some reason brexiteers or remainers believed that in such a close referendum and with the parliamentary arithimetic that they could lazily just rely on an unstable 'will of the people line'- as i guarantee had remain won, that's exactly what they would have done too- which would have been a dire mistake.

May's majority- things were screwed prior to that i'd say, though the DUP and increased influence of various backbencers have indeed ensured the process is even more difficult. Without actual attempts and willingness on all sides to compromise and build a consensus the arithmetic prior even to the GE was never there for one view to triumph over the others, particularly in the short-term. A key part of this being that the brexiteers overplayed their hand, hence the remain backlash- they actively relied on 'will of the people' while doing nothing to resolve the fact parliamentary arithmetic was against them, the referendum result was not one that can realistically ensure 'brexit' remains policy in the short-term- they were reliant on May pandering to them, hence why none will topple her, as if she goes the likelihood is either Corbyn or indeed in a leadership battle a 'soft brexiteer' or remainer- the flip side of this is that May tired to keep her shakey base together by pandering to both sides- a sub-faction of the brexiteers being more vocal and just enough to topple her, but they messed up by never trying to build from that foundation into a serious power block (and part of this was of course due to the domestic agenda) instead pinning their power solely onto May.

And to give May her dues, i don't thin it was her plan to gridlock brexit, i think she's trying to deliver it- if she wasn't frankly she could have from the beginning put forward a 'soft brexit'- norway-esque style model and the parliamentary arithmetic was there, with the majority of Tories and other parties who would have easily got such a position through. The fact she tried to appease all sides, shows i think she at least was serious about trying to come up with something that kept everyone happy- an impossibility when again no one is in the business of wanting to create a long-lasting consensus. But i will give you alternatively that it is a possibility that a stronger mandate for her would have led to a more clear-cut fudge brexit indeed, i don't really rate her at all as a leader so while it may be my bias i think that's a fair scenario.

EDIT:

Something of interest too- Steve Bannon and his conception of helping to create a advocacy group in the EU or euro skeptic and 'Far-right' MEPS across countries who could influence the direction of the EU. I don't know about the viability of such a movement, their certainly is a possibility it could garner a significant minority in the European parliament, but as to their euro-skeptic credentials i'm unsure yet considering the expected rise of anti-eu parties that would seek a similar their own 'exits' failed to materialize after the referendum result- with The Netherlands, Spain, Greece and Italy etc (Though here their may be some traction now, though they did keep 'on-script' to the British officials last week when they tried to lobby for support) presenting a 'unified front' in line with the EU's against the UK thus far. This might though be due to more a geopolitical interest in what they themselves can gain from the UK leaving, or indeed as some have suggested- because we've made such a screw-up of our brexit process, while the idea of a referendum is approved, the majority no longer want to follow suit.

Most EU citizens don’t want their countries to leave the Union but support a referendum on membership, according to a survey by Pew Research Center published Thursday.Support for a national referendum on EU membership was particularly high in Spain (65 percent), France (61 percent), and Greece and Italy (both 57 percent).

Greece and Italy also recorded the highest level of support (35 percent) for an actual departure from the EU. France and Sweden followed, both on 22 percent.
But the EU is more popular than it was a year ago. Most of those polled in nine of 10 EU member countries hold a favorable view of Brussels, with support being highest in Poland (74 percent), Germany (68 percent) and Hungary (67 percent). In 2016, support for the EU was at 72 percent in Poland, 50 percent in Germany, and 61 percent in Hungary.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-s...endum-support/

Regardless, the interesting point about Bannon's group is this:

Mr Bannon’s move into Europe also appears set to have an impact on the dynamics of Brexit talks, with one source close to Brexit negotiations telling The Independent that Brussels has been spooked by the alt-right project.
As a result, EU officials are increasingly resistant to calls for the Article 50 negotiating period to be extended, so as to avoid eurosceptic Britain participating in the European parliament elections scheduled for next May.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...box=1532809773

It could be its the EU that secures in stone Britains departure date, but it also may have an impact on the British side by helping to shore up Mays brexit plan, as toppling her through a leadership contest would take a significant amount of the remaining time, and that's not to mention the potential political necessity for a snap election (assuming their brexit plan would be different to May's and they'd need to prove to the various factions of their party and in Parliament that they have a mandate for it, given the current climates lack of compromising).

On the other-hand, this may merely be being overplayed- thus far the indications are that May could seek an extension to the time period, and the EU are open to this- making the potential of her being toppled somewhat more feasible (though arguably given the context currently, not by much), and of course Bannon's project isn't 'there' yet- thus its impact will remain an unknown quantity.

[NorseThing]

s@Dante Von Hespburg: If only for your posts, I will keep reading this thread.

Steve Bannon is pretty much transparent in that he dislikes multinational organizations usurping sovereign powers from countries. This Brexit mess is just made for his meddling. The UK established politicians want to run out the clock on the separation and the EU politicians want to punish or simply get rid of the nuisance UK before the next EU parliamentary election cycle. If anything he wants to give rise to pan EU movement of EU skepticism and perhaps get some skeptics into the parliament while nobody is looking since the parliament is not even the real power of the EU. That power resides in the foreign ministries of the various countries and the bureaucracy that is employed to handle the day to day affairs of power. Months ago, Bannon decribed the EU response as vicious and dismissive (Steve Bannon says EU's treatment of Britain over Brexit ...).

Now the right or maybe the far right is being courted by Bannon.

Ukip has pledged to work with Steve Bannon’s new European alt-right movement, forging what critics have branded an “unholy alliance” to bring down the EU and fuel populism across the continent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8464846.html

Of course UKIP is tailor made for Bannon's interests. The question should be - is Bannon tailor made for UKIP's interests? Not that UKIP is a major force in any legislative organization, but they can be factor that can draw off support from others or they can be a force that endorses candidates from other parties that align with their broader agenda. I wonder why the strategy of by-elections is so desired? And how this relates to the USA media in love with the potential blue wave based upon the USA by-elections. The populist / Brexit frenzy will not go away even if the UK leaves the EU on a schedule. This is something that the EU should realisize. Bannon's entry in to the fray is proof of that.

It may be time for the EU to speed up the separation process and concede to some format. The problem is that certain formats such as the EU Customs Union are worse than EU membership since sovereignty is waved. Perhaps May would consider a fudge by joining European Economic Area as they withdraw from the EU. The Eurosceptics would have a fit though. Such a free trade association like Norway's would still be subservient to EU laws on the free movement of people and goods. It is that free movement of people that is the real stumble point on the exit from the EU.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

s@Dante Von Hespburg: If only for your posts, I will keep reading this thread.

Likewise to yours mate, i find your analysis here very interesting, and i think spot on. I can't fault it for a second. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out with Bannon. I know there already exists a the EU parliament a Euroskeptic grouping of MEP's from across the member-states, It was iirc the 'Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy' party with Farage being a prominent member for Britain. The issue with it was that despite being somewhat consistent, it was very unstable and lacked influence- for instance in 2014, which of course was a very different time politically, but they essentially collapsed when Italy's MEPs pulled out and were only saved by Poland- though my memory is hazy i can try and dig up a search on the actual details if anyone wants. It did though i think diminish the voice of UKIP in the EU, whose MEP's had made up most of the group- so it'll be interesting to see (one day ) if the loss or diminishment of this vehicle did anything to galvanize existing euro-skeptics in the UK to seriously start thinking about a brexit scenario in the short term. It might be one of the short term 'triggers' for brexit and an increase in UKIP's vote share. But with this in mind, it'll be interesting to see what Bannon brings to the table to create a potentially more influential group, with the powers of at least exerting some pressure on the EU body.

As a general point though- Its been awesome to be in this thread with you and the others guys- i think we've managed to make what is a terribly divisive topic (I'm sure we've all seen either directly from our facebook feeds , or if abroad heard at least about how vicious much of the discussion is about brexit between polarized groups has been) into a genuinely interesting discussion with respect for each others views. So it continues to be a pleasure guys.

Steve Bannon is pretty much transparent in that he dislikes multinational organizations usurping sovereign powers from countries. This Brexit mess is just made for his meddling. The UK established politicians want to run out the clock on the separation and the EU politicians want to punish or simply get rid of the nuisance UK before the next EU parliamentary election cycle. If anything he wants to give rise to pan EU movement of EU skepticism and perhaps get some skeptics into the parliament while nobody is looking since the parliament is not even the real power of the EU. That power resides in the foreign ministries of the various countries and the bureaucracy that is employed to handle the day to day affairs of power. Months ago, Bannon decribed the EU response as vicious and dismissive (Steve Bannon says EU's treatment of Britain over Brexit ...).

Now the right or maybe the far right is being courted by Bannon.

Ukip has pledged to work with Steve Bannon’s new European alt-right movement, forging what critics have branded an “unholy alliance” to bring down the EU and fuel populism across the continent.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8464846.html

Of course UKIP is tailor made for Bannon's interests. The question should be - is Bannon tailor made for UKIP's interests? Not that UKIP is a major force in any legislative organization, but they can be factor that can draw off support from others or they can be a force that endorses candidates from other parties that align with their broader agenda. I wonder why the strategy of by-elections is so desired? And how this relates to the USA media in love with the potential blue wave based upon the USA by-elections. The populist / Brexit frenzy will not go away even if the UK leaves the EU on a schedule. This is something that the EU should realisize. Bannon's entry in to the fray is proof of that.

Spot on with the analysis i feel there. It'll be interesting in pursuit of this super-group of euroskeptics if Bannon can surmount the problem of the past euroskeptic MEP groups- which the article semi alludes to indeed, of creating parties that directly work together for their end goals, while being mandated and legitimized upon a platform of national interest and sovereignty. Its always made it difficult, and i'd argue is one of the reasons they tend to be less stable than their peers- because how can you work towards a common goal or vision, when you've also got to be seen pushing for your nations interests over that of the EU's other members. This is ostensibly helped by most sharing a common goal- but there is a divide based upon if the aim is to destroy the EU entirely, or reform it, or take bits of it. Which has meant a lack of drive and aims as they can't easily be agreed. The other issue was as the article said, now all member states euroskeptic voters see other euroskeptic voters in other states as 'allies', and can even depending on domestic politics be perturbed at working with them, thus making potentially the stability of these parties and their MEP's very different and increasing their reluctance to engage meaningfully with one another. I'll be interesting to see how Bannon can overcome these traditional issues to mold his vision. Particulalry with regard to brexit, when probably a percentage of euroskeptic MEP's who were quite stable and more influential than most- UKIP and certain Conservative MEP's are no longer going to be directly in the scope.

UKIP jumping into bed with Bannon- i don't know indeed how it'll play out. UKIP has effectively been removed as a political entity, though as you say its key power is the ability to in the context of a British political cycle where coalitions or 'minority' majority governments are the order of the day- the sweeping victories of Blair with a hundred odd leading seemingly a distant memory- mean that their ability to potentially eat away at the vote share of the big two parties is still very much a threat. Indeed given how brexit is going i somewhat expect a UKIP resurgence at the next GE based on the terms and consequences of the deal or potential deal (Hedging as a snap election is a potential possibility, if still a small one ). But in terms of such an alliance for Bannon and UKIP- bearing in mind the majority of UKIP voters when they 'surge' beyond their core base are from dissatisfied Labour and Conservative voters, i don't know how domestically linking with Bannon will play out, it may even damage UKIP's chances of ever garnering influence again considering Britain doesn't seem to 'do' political 'extremes' (In the British sense ) of left and right- which Bannon represents for the right. On the other hand though, its difficult to say given current divisions what the consequences of brexit politically might be- We're in a very rare point in the history of FPTP where British politics has essentially been 'broken' by the brexit process, so i won't place any bets yet incase historical norms are totally eschewed.

I'm not sure in regards to the by-election strategy. I'm not really up to scratch on US politics currently, so can't comment there- though its interesting indeed to explore the parallel you've laid out. Pragmatically though i suspect that by-elections are somewhat 'easier' to win for a new challenger, than facing down at national ones as the resources, media awareness and 'overall' picture of states (and the EU) is no longer an issue- the public voting won't be influenced say by events or scandals happening elsewhere that can be linked to a candidates beliefs, and also they may be better able to compete financially. So small chipping away under the radar?

But your right in that the EU has to realize populist forces won't be killed off by brexit- its a wider issue. Though to give them their dues, their does seem to be a noting of this with the EU working closer and listening to member states now about immigration issues and certain matters of sovereignty. So we'll see how this bares fruit next year. There's also as seems to have happened the issue being that Brexit is percieved as being such a botched job so far on the part of Britain, that it will (as i think the polls previously showed) detract support from an outright form of euroskeptisim that wants to leave the EU, into areas where instead they wish to reform or change it. So i wonder how Bannon will make use of this- whether his aim will be pragmatic change for the group, or indeed to dismantle the EU- the latter i think currently at least is a pipe-dream, given that the euroskeptic states have made no actual moves to help Britain's brexit, despite May essentially pleading to them, and have toed the EU line.

It may be time for the EU to speed up the separation process and concede to some format. The problem is that certain formats such as the EU Customs Union are worse than EU membership since sovereignty is waved. Perhaps May would consider a fudge by joining European Economic Area as they withdraw from the EU. The Eurosceptics would have a fit though. Such a free trade association like Norway's would still be subservient to EU laws on the free movement of people and goods. It is that free movement of people and goods. It is that free movement of people that is the real stumble point on the exit from the EU

These are good points. There i think will be an issue in the case of a 'deal' scenario that is 'Norway-esque' (Which i believe is somewhat where the UK if May gets her way will end up if/when the EU negotiates her down from the original chequers position)- while protecting somewhat the economy, actually delivers less sovereignty indeed than when we were a member due to as you say it being waved by having no say in the rules or the running of the union which we've signed up to. I'm not sure though what the electoral consequences for the Conservative party will be here though, as brexit for them in the ways being lacked at is very much 'lose, lose'. On the other hand for instance, a brexit that is a Canada Style deal, which is also likely, but that excludes service, specifically financial- will have an adverse impact on Britain's economy (affecting the perceptions of the Conservatives who have made the negotiations 'their baby' for the majority of the public who aren't ideologically aligned to leave or remain) and will also really peeve off the Conservatives traditional core support and funders in the City. Though iirc a deal would be popular among many of the Conservative associations around the country- making this a huge mess essentially for them politically. I do give some credence to the commentators who are talking about brexit being the death knell of the Conservative party (added to brexit the domestic agenda issues), however, FPTP also makes this unlikely realistically, and i can't see Corbyn getting a Blair-esque landslide that would consign the Conservatives to opposition for the next decade- of course it may happen- again i'm not going to place money on anything, But i think the two-party system will prop up the Conservatives, as seen by their brexiteer faction consistently backing away from their threats to topple May, or indeed 'split' and form their own party- as the former would lead to probably a softer brexiteer or remainer getting the premiership, and the latter would see any such new party punished severely due to FPTP- as the brexiteers lack the parliamentary numbers in either scenario to make it work. So i think in this context of the Tories damned if they do, damned if they don't- all types of deal are on-the table pragmatically- its just who gains 'control' of the party, Brexiteers, May, Or Remainers.

Your right too about the big contention to the deal being freedom of movement. Its been exacerbated by the DUP and the N.Irish border being made such a political issue- May's red lines here actually being a huge drawback to a pragmatic solution (I'm sure we all still remember her being on the verge of signing an argreement with the EU that would have significantly resolved the issue and led to progress, before at the last minute the DUP literally dragging her back to the UK to dress her down, and the subsequently her position changed). I suspect though given the current political situation we're heading for the Norway-type deal, or (ironically and in complete contrast) are in danger of crashing out on WTO- which i tend to agree with Caratacus about- we've messed around for two years and are not remotely prepared as we should have been for the consequences of that. Either way though, the Conservatives are going to suffer- if this will benefit UKIP or not (Perhaps even with defections? Though i again doubt any Conservatives would be ready to sacrifice their career for their principles based on how things have developed currently) i'm not sure. I suspect to make a safe-guess, post-brexit UK politics might be dominated by coalition arrangements or continued 'unstable' majority governments, possibly from Labour, though if Corbyn does step-down, and Labour keep the same policy platform (He being divisive, his policies though being universally supported)- then the magic of Blair may rear its head again.

Speaking of which the idea put forward by Blair for a new 'center party' in UK politics- specifically to combat a hard-left domestic agenda and a hard-right brexit- as he puts it- i think is a dead duck . Not that centrism is 'dead' per say, but that the UK currently requires radical solutions for its myriad of issues and i can't see this gaining traction among the electorate due to this point. I assume this party would have the same position on brexit as the lib-dems- i.e. against Brexit, while also having the same 'pragmatic' compromise policies on how to do things domestically- the issue being thus far this combo hasn't exactly worked for them.. and i can't see it working in the near future for anyone else. So the potential for Bannon to have a competitors in Blair- both trying to forge new parties and European supergroups is not there, and political commentators will have to alas sulk that the two will not be locked in some titanic struggle for the heart of Europe .

[Cope]

I'm not sure here, the key part of the interview for me is this- excuse my paraphrasing out the 'tittle bits' of 'come on'- but:

Rees-Mogg: “We won’t know the full economic consequences for a very long time"

C4: “Of course not, but I mean we’ll have an indication. We’ll know if there’s been chaos, we’ll know if there have been job losses.”

Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”

That is a very different answer than what generally has been given out before over brexit- It could be Moggs is being realistic about the economic impact, in contrast to Boris and co's extremely sunny outlook. The fact Moggs your right does indeed later point out that he believes brexit to have immediate benefits isn't the issue, indeed its expected, but this part plus as you point out his emphasis on both the people deciding if brexit is a success or failure, and also the outcome of it will be determined by a post-brexit government, is political distancing that previously we hadn't heard from brexiteers. In fairness to you and Moggs though i will say that i am perhaps being harsh in terms of using his example here to support the larger case (replete with Hannon, Gove, Davis and Boris's comments on Brexit recently) that their is a 'scaling back' of the ownership of brexit by its architects- Moggs was never one to extoll wildly how everything will somehow suddenly be amazing- so i'll give him his dues there.

Rees-Mogg's answer was different from "what generally has been given" because the inquiry was itself different from what is generally asked. He responded to a hypothetical scenario in which his near-term predictions were assumed to be incorrect by suggesting that even if such an eventuality were to occur, he would still have faith in Brexit's long term potential. Stating that "the overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" is not congruent with implying that the United Kingdom will only acquire a "Brexit dividend" in fifty years time. As we have discussed, he clarified his position on his near-term expectations immediately afterwards.

As to your second point, it was self-evident that the nature of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union was, is and will always be, contingent upon Parliament's position.

EDIT: If i am misinterpreting this i do apologize- though i sincerely believe i'm not- but i'm not so arrogant (Only a bit [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Tris/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]) to admit when i've made a mistake or try and cover it up with word-play and goal post shifting. I do see your point, but i just think that regardless of the expected statement of support, its significant that we have here what i see as political distancing from the consequences of brexit- and that is a lack of ownership i do understand considering this is in the context of the Chequers speech- which has seen May seize the brexit agenda for the first time in a rather different way to what brexiteers like Moggs was hoping for- so its understandable to want to start emphasizing distance to the current process as a 'not what i envisaged' stance, as a fair few Conservative brexiteers have briefed exactly that against May already.

You are free to interpret events to your liking. For the reasons I have stated, I choose to interpret the recent claims of "political distancing" on the part of Rees-Mogg as an attempt by certain elements of the press to frame him as a Brexit charlatan. That said, I'm not entirely sure what you expect of Rees-Mogg, Gove, Johnson, Davis et al. The Prime Minister pledged to withdrawal the United Kingdom from the European Union on terms broadly agreeable to the ERG. She then turned around and effectively disavowed this position at Chequers. They can't "own" a policy that they publicly disagree with - hence the resignations.

I appreciate it [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Tris/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] But i wanted say demoralized is the right word- i've expected it to be a disaster since the Conservatives assumed full ownership of it and eschewed the fact their was little political capital and actively cut out openness and transparency from the process, you remember i'm sure the endless whining of not wanting to disclose their aims and how they would manage brexit to parliamentary scrutiny because they didn't want to 'reveal their hand'- turns out they had no hand- they were covering for the fact there was never any actual clue on their part.

The Conservatives assumed full ownership of Brexit from the 24th of June 2016. They did, subsequent to the general election of 2017, offer the Labour Party an opportunity to create a cross-party consensus on the details of the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, but the offer was rejected.

That said, we do need to get some perspective here: I find it very unlikely that Britain leaving the European Union will be a "disaster" under any realistic circumstances. The Second World War was a disaster. The Tsunami of 2004 was a disaster. A country democratically leaving a political union younger than 30 years old is, in all probability, not going to be.

I disagree on the media coverage of brexit- from my perspective we have the majority of the print media being very supportive of brexit (But indeed not of May)- even going so far as to try and shut down democratic debate, which was ridiculous- with the whole 'traitors' and 'will of the people' arguments- which if you face going through my ramblings and/or need a sleep aid at any point [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Tris/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] (though i don't begrudge you mate if for some reason you choose to forgo that!)

It was not my intention to argue that the majority of print media opposed Brexit. With relation to the Rees-Mogg article, I was expressing my disappointment at the spread of hyperbolic misinformation emanating from certain quarters on both sides of the debate.

i mentioned in the posts on the previous page and the top here how it was a stupid idea to try and forget building a consensus (for both the media and brexiteer mps ) and instead rely on a mandate with no long term sustainability- eschewing what was actually needed- which was after the vote to build the legitimate basis of a brexit that lasts by convincing MP's but more importantly a very divided electorate. The same of course goes for Remain leaning MP's and media. And ultimate blame can be assigned to Cameron for putting party politics first and trying to rush a referendum in the hopes of an easy win, to then lose it on an issue the majority of the UK public didn't care about originally- it meant the referendum was always going to be close, no matter who won and political turmoil was always going to ensure due to this regardless of remain or leave- i'm sure we all remember Farage, who quite fairly pointed out he'd seek a second referendum in quick succession if the first came out with 'Remain'. Add to this the UK's current domestic economic context (which is dire and has been ignored alas) and you have that brexit for remain or leave, was always going to be bad for us- Note though i'm not saying leaving the EU itself was always going to be a disaster- just that it was pretty much certain given the UK's domestic context at the time of the referendum- there is indeed out there a very good plan for brexit with an economic plan that makes sense and a timescale that benefits all- its been largely ignored after the referendum though due to the Conservatives as far as i can tell essentially being incompetent and going into melt-down (and that was before May called her GE).

Cameron's motivations for holding a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership were at best suspect. Nevertheless, he was supported in his endeavour by 5 out 6 Parliamentarians. This was a clear indication that Parliament generally agreed that the matter could only be conclusively settled by a plebiscite. The Labour Party could have opposed the referendum bill if it felt that it was inappropriate. They chose not to. It could also have opposed the triggering of Article 50. Again it chose not to.

For these reasons (and others) it is too simplistic to argue that "ultimate blame can be assigned to Cameron". The significant divisions caused by the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union were created by the Europhillic decisions taken by successive British governments dating back to the early 1990's. Major chose not to meaningfully converse with the electorate about the constitutional implications of the Maastricht Treaty. Blair made the same decision with reference to the Lisbon Treaty. Both chose not to pursue referendums. What we're seeing now is largely a consequence of their unilateralism.

But indeed, i won't knock your optimism, its more i don't share it given these contexts. I think a big issue as i mentioned is that far from needing greater progress and unity- the past two years is that we haven't had any actual progress on either- Its been a Conservative game in power-politics with each other, plus attempting to shore up their parties support over the country and building a consensus- and here is where i'd hold the brexiteers to account- as i mentioned in avoiding the task of building an actual stable consensus, to relying on 'will of the people'- which as a basis for legitimacy was poor given the outcome and leaves it open to later reversal pending a second referendum, or as i pointed out in an earlier post last page- the next government upon leaving, simply taking us back into the EU...but with the disaster that we'll have to adopt the euro and will lose our opt-outs (which is not something i want at all- as i said, multiple factions each side [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Tris/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] i'm a former remainer who believed in a two-tier EU and wants nothing to do with currency union). But due to the lack of creating unity (and it is a political task- its a pipe dream that for some reason brexiteers or remainers believed that in such a close referendum and with the parliamentary arithimetic that they could lazily just rely on an unstable 'will of the people line'- as i guarantee had remain won, that's exactly what they would have done too- which would have been a dire mistake.

I do not believe that a refusal to be hysterically cynical is synonymous with being optimistic. I agree that Parliament has handled Brexit with relative incompetence, but as I've argued above, I believe that it has behaved with similar incompetence with respect to most matters concerning Anglo-European relations over the past 25 years. It's decision not to join the Eurozone is a notable exception to this.

As to your second point, the legitimacy of the referendum ought to be as powerful as the result of any general election. Many representative elections are "close". That doesn't mean that their outcomes should be considered invalid. Parliament cannot not vote to ignore the outcome of its own referendum and expect anything less than a significant deterioration in own legitimacy. This is why both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party pledged to lead the United Kingdom out of the European Union during the 2017 election. There is both a direct and representative mandate for the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union.

May's majority- things were screwed prior to that i'd say, though the DUP and increased influence of various backbencers have indeed ensured the process is even more difficult. Without actual attempts and willingness on all sides to compromise and build a consensus the arithmetic prior even to the GE was never there for one view to triumph over the others, particularly in the short-term. A key part of this being that the brexiteers overplayed their hand, hence the remain backlash- they actively relied on 'will of the people' while doing nothing to resolve the fact parliamentary arithmetic was against them, the referendum result was not one that can realistically ensure 'brexit' remains policy in the short-term- they were reliant on May pandering to them, hence why none will topple her, as if she goes the likelihood is either Corbyn or indeed in a leadership battle a 'soft brexiteer' or remainer- the flip side of this is that May tired to keep her shakey base together by pandering to both sides- a sub-faction of the brexiteers being more vocal and just enough to topple her, but they messed up by never trying to build from that foundation into a serious power block (and part of this was of course due to the domestic agenda) instead pinning their power solely onto May.

The Prime Minister was clearly in a more commanding position prior to the 2017 election than after it: the arithmetic may not have been great, but it was much more workable than it is now. What you refer to as a "remain backlash" has been emboldened by the government's weakness. Europhillic MPs and Lords now believe that they have a realistic opportunity to torpedo the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Rees-Mogg's answer was different from "what generally has been given" because the inquiry was itself different from what is generally asked. He responded to a hypothetical scenario in which his near-term predictions were assumed to be incorrect by suggesting that even if such an eventuality were to occur, he would still have faith in Brexit's long term potential. Stating that "the overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next fifty years" is not congruent with implying that the United Kingdom will only acquire a "Brexit dividend" in fifty years time. As we have discussed, he clarified his position on his near-term expectations immediately afterwards.

As to your second point, it was self-evident that the nature of the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union was, is and will always be, contingent upon Parliament's position.


You are free to interpret events to your liking. For the reasons I have stated, I choose to interpret the recent claims of "political distancing" on the part of Rees-Mogg as an attempt by certain elements of the press to frame him as a Brexit charlatan. That said, I'm not entirely sure what you expect of Rees-Mogg, Gove, Johnson, Davis et al. The Prime Minister pledged to withdrawal the United Kingdom from the European Union on terms broadly agreeable to the ERG. She then turned around and effectively disavowed this position at Chequers. They can't "own" a policy that they publicly disagree with - hence the resignations.
.

A fair point there, i see what you mean. You've rather too hit the nail on the head at what though the general change in rhetoric has been about- i do agree that May's position is a very different one now to the previous iteration- so that is a large factor in why essentially we've had Conservatives briefing against her her are supportive of brexit, and indeed though supportive of remain. Perhaps the most interesting thing is she's managed to unite all factions through their opposition to her current plan- its been an incredible misjudgment, that speaking from an academic perspective will be interesting (again shame we're living through it) as effectively she's now 'owning' brexit entirely on her own, she won't have either faction to hide behind if her position is a total flop (as many seem to expect), of course she could use the whole 'their fault as they didn't support me', but i don't think it'll fly this time, having been overused far too much in recent times.

The Conservatives assumed full ownership of Brexit from the 24th of June 2016. They did, subsequent to the general election of 2017, offer the Labour Party an opportunity to create a cross-party consensus on the details of the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, but the offer was rejected.

That said, we do need to get some perspective here: I find it very unlikely that Britain leaving the European Union will be a "disaster" under any realistic circumstances. The Second World War was a disaster. The Tsunami of 2004 was a disaster. A country democratically leaving a political union younger than 30 years old is, in all probability, not going to be.

To the first point, they offered in terms that would never have been acceptable in fairness to any opposition party (and then proceeded to against precedent for a minority government, weight key policy committee's in their own favour)- it was essentially 'we make the decisions, you take the blame'- and having seen how that fared for the lib-dems who were in a formal coalition (and who the Conservatives quite masterfully edged out) i don't know how they expected that to fly.

As to disaster, i'm using it in political terms, but i do take note that indeed it won't be as bad as those (Though a no-deal might well be under certain circumstances for the short term considering we don't yet still have our house in order to prepare for that). But i view a drop in quality of living (Economic, removed opportunities, working protections, propping up of a failed economic model, poor future trade deals with the US and China that destroy British industries as the CBI predicts, social instability, environmental issues- all things the Tories have already screwed up on in the domestic front that will be exacerbated by their current iterations of brexit) to be a disaster politically.

Cameron's motivations for holding a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership were at best suspect. Nevertheless, he was supported in his endeavour by 5 out 6 Parliamentarians. This was a clear indication that Parliament generally agreed that the matter could only be conclusively settled by a plebiscite. The Labour Party could have opposed the referendum bill if it felt that it was inappropriate. They chose not to. It could also have opposed the triggering of Article 50. Again it chose not to.

For these reasons (and others) it is too simplistic to argue that "ultimate blame can be assigned to Cameron". The significant divisions caused by the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union were created by the Europhillic decisions taken by successive British governments dating back to the early 1990's. Major chose not to meaningfully converse with the electorate about the constitutional implications of the Maastricht Treaty. Blair made the same decision with reference to the Lisbon Treaty. Both chose not to pursue referendums. What we're seeing now is largely a consequence of their unilateralism.

I think too much credence is given to the autonomy for Labour and by extension Parliament here - The political context, a Conservative party just emerging from coalition, which everyone predicted, including themselves would be either a Labour-Lib coalition, or a continuing Tory-Lib one- fearful of going back there and Cameron reliant on every single MP due to a small majority. The 'Bastards' (as Major called them ) having a large amount of influence here, and Cameron throwing them a bone to keep them on side, and seeing a chance to kill off (In his view at least) an issue that had riven the Conservatives since the 1980s.

I think your partly right that this is the result of the EU battle that has riven British politics since joining- but the direct context of our referendum- the political division, which is in no small part due to a rather hasty referendum (Note that i am pro referendum on this- but as it was initiated by Cameron and not the actual euroskeptics it has all the flaws i mentioned) on a subject that beyond us who were interested- the vast majority of the public gave no heed to prior to this- thus the close call, for whoever would have won and so the attendant political instability of the UK after this.

I do not believe that a refusal to be hysterically cynical is synonymous with being optimistic. I agree that Parliament has handled Brexit with relative incompetence, but as I've argued above, I believe that it has behaved with similar incompetence with respect to most matters concerning Anglo-European relations over the past 25 years. It's decision not to join the Eurozone is a notable exception to this.

Again i'm not hysterical at all about this. The key point i think is that i see a UK who hasn't always behaved with incompetence, but (politically speaking, not in terms of our subjective stances of Join=Good vs never should have joined) has actually had a large degree of influence considering the time and nature of our joining, and essentially shaped both the common market, as well as taking the lead in expanding the EU further East, gaining allies and building our own bloc within a 2-Tier system that we almost singe-handedly carved out. I think the incompetence though did arrive later, with the coalition- as all that was essentially thrown away and a perception created of an isolated Britain surrounded by states who wanted to federate (far from the truth given the success of the two-tier system) but also in Britain a lack of care about how the EU worked, and could work among the public (Not even talking about being against it, as that's a healthy position, but a literal 'i have no opinion, nor do i care, it doesn't affect me' perspective), and a media that did nothing to change that at all.

As to your second point, the legitimacy of the referendum ought to be as powerful as the result of any general election. Many representative elections are "close". That doesn't mean that their outcomes should be considered invalid. Parliament cannot not vote to ignore the outcome of its own referendum and expect anything less than a significant deterioration in own legitimacy. This is why both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party pledged to lead the United Kingdom out of the European Union during the 2017 election. There is both a direct and representative mandate for the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union.

Not quite the issue though, i'm not saying this referendum is 'invalid'- i'm saying its not enough to keep us 5 years down the line outside the EU. It wouldn't even be ignoring it- we'd have left- and then a government of Blue or Red persuasion comes along, replete with demographic and opinion shifts and takes us back in, using the same 'will of the people' argument- through vote, election win or a referendum. The issue isn't as the brexiteers having been thinking 'how do we do brexit now'- it is why they've failed thus far as the issue is (given the referendum result especially- and as i mentioned it could never have been anything but 'close' for either side courtesy of Cameron, who was informed by factors not really to do with a serious debate on EU membership) how do we 'keep' brexited. Thus far- arithmetic in both the electorate and parliament is that essentially in the short-term we rejoin, unless brexit can be show to be good for the majority of Britains and be turned not into a 'do it or you'll suffer in the next election', but into an actual vote winner- that having done brexit well, they'll be able to build a workable majority of support. That's a tall feat considering how both campaigns were played, and what we're still seeing now.

The Prime Minister was clearly in a more commanding position prior to the 2017 election than after it: the arithmetic may not have been great, but it was much more workable than it is now. What you refer to as a "remain backlash" has been emboldened by the government's weakness. Europhillic MPs and Lords now believe that they have a realistic opportunity to torpedo the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union.

She was, but 'commanding position' is relative indeed. Bearing in mind prior to this the Tories lacked any kind of landslide or even 'safe' majority politically speaking, as every faction counted within the Tory party, and with the Westminster 'umbrella' system that's not something ideal for Prime Ministers as they need wiggle room to create effective policy. I won't deny it was more workable, but especially given the situation with brexit we'd have still ended up in a similar scenario without May's botched job. As instead of a terrible election being seen as the catalyst for emboldening the various factions, it would have been the first few close calls voting on various parts of the brexit bill, or amendments tabled by the Lords to it- that would have woken up remainers, or other brexiteer groups to just how much influence they can wield if they wanted to make things difficult.

I agree that europhillic MP's believe that now have the opportunity to torpedo brexit due to this string of events, however i can't see how brexit wouldn't end up here. The influence of the brexiteers over May always had an expiry limit- it was essentially based on both how long she choose to be cowed (The arithmetic situation being key here) and also the danger they would as happened overplay their hand. I think though a big part has been the overlaying of brexit with the struggle for not just Tory leader, but the 'ideological heart' of the Conservative party and the struggle setting up for it when it was realized that May was a caretaker at best (Boris, Gove, May, Davis, Hammond, Hunt and co to name a few jockeying for this). Thus far more division has been caused by infighting stemming from this than would otherwise have happened- and heck no am i saying Labour would be any better in terms of this , the big difference being that the Conservatives in government are far more under the spotlight for this.

EDIT: Something that again ties into both a change in rhetoric of some brexiteer members, but also i think highlights the 'career first approach' the Conservatives have adopted with brexit:

https://www.ft.com/content/722039cc-...b-b8205561c3fe

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach ofFT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

https://www.ft.com/content/722039cc-...b-b8205561c3fe

Michael Gove, the Eurosceptic UK environment minister, has privately discussed a backstop plan that would keep the UK in the EU single market if Theresa May’s Brexit strategy failed.At a recent dinner, Mr Gove talked with moderate Conservative MPs and peers about a scenario in which the UK would remain “parked” in the European Economic Area, like Norway, to avoid the chaos of a disorderly “no deal” exit.The idea of the UK’s staying in the EEA in the event of Brexit talks collapsing has been gaining ground among some Conservatives, even though such an outcome would outrage hardline Eurosceptics and could trigger the downfall of Mrs May.The prime minister has ruled out EEA membership, arguing that a Norway-style relationship with the EU would cross her red lines relating to free movement, EU budget contributions and the European Court of Justice. EEA membership requires full free movement of goods, services, capital and people across borders.But Mr Gove raised the possibility at a private dinner with about 20 Tory MPs and peers on June 25, as he ran through various options in the event of Mrs May being unable to agree a deal in Brussels before March next year.The environment secretary is working behind the scenes to present himself as a Brexiter who is capable of uniting the Conservative party, earning him the distrust of Eurosceptics.

Gove who alongside Boris is considered one of the archbrexiteers- though again factions within the two camps and all that- Is starting to purport, against May AND a more 'hardline brexit' the back up plan of remaining in the single market. While he (naturally) claims to maintain his support for the PM and brexit generally- the rhetoric and new ground being broken, as well has the influence being exerted is a major personal u-turn, though one that has been building gently i'd say with successive remarks from him. It also though in the article i rather believes alludes to the reason for this- Career over brexit, he's presenting himself as one capable of speaking for both parts of the Conservative party. It'll be interesting if this is enough to rehabilitate him among Conservatives after being essentially the back-stabbing catalyst that ended Boris's leadership chances.

[Winston Smith]

Brexit shouldn't mean national suicide via Hard Brexit.

[mongrel]

Anyone old enough to have that 'Ted Heath' moment, when we had to queue for bread, sugar fuel or other random stuff Britain ran out of?

I found Dominiuc Raab's admission and other comments that the UK government would have to work with industry to avoid a no deal diruption of food supplies and medical supplies rather extraordinary-.It is as if May's government is saying that saving face on the leave issue is more important than the general welfare of Britons.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/24/contingencies-planned-to-ensure-uks-post-brexit-food-supply-says-raab.