Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[caratacus]

No she damned well isn't, it was the Supreme Court decided that Parliament had the right to have a final say on Brexit andnot the Prime Minister. She actually did the country a service by challenging the establishment as you call it. What was she doing in 1972, when Ted Heath took us into the EEC? She was a child. If only she had a TARDIS or modified Delorean,the poor sod.

You know that to be fact then? Because I think her motivation isn't some deep seated concern for Parliamentary democracy. I'm sure there has been plenty of time in her formative years in the legal profession for her to demonstrate that concern until recently don't you think?

But never mind, we digress to personalities, and that isn't the issue here. True, Parliament should have a voice at a say in the Brexit process, to ensure legality under the Constitution. Since a referendum and a government mandate alone aren't sufficient to push through all the legislation that is required both before and after leaving the EU. To argue such would, and has, been the ridiculous position of the PM. But the use of Parliament to deliberately prevent or water down leaving the EU such as to render the Country as some kind of subject state, maybe constitutionally in order, but will set Parliament against large numbers of the electorate, which would be extremely bad for Parliamentary democracy in the UK.

The Supreme Court's only requirement is that the law is followed. Its what judges do. As I pointed out to HH, whether they agree depends entirely on the letter of the European Act, not sentiment. Following the law, which looks like it ought to be tested, does not alter the merits of Brexit or Remain, indeed it would give the result, either way, added legitimacy.

Is your worry that Remain's argument would be stronger if people voted on the experiences so far and actual data, rather than the bollocks offered by both sides last time round?

So you would sort out the uncertainties in the British position in the negotiating position with the EU, created by a referendum which the Supreme Court consider purely advisory, with another referendum? Seems odd that a Supreme Court would be advocating something they themselves consider flawed in deciding public policy. Why not have made Brexit the part of a new election in 2019 when agreements have been reached and we are set to leave. Then the British people can . A. Accept the conditions of the agreement. B. Not accept the agreement and leave without, or C. Not leave at all. Of course this would be a deal more open than the nefarious antics currently being pursue by the political establishment who quite obviously wish to keep as much from public involvement as possible and leave the whole process to be decided within a Parliament that didn't wish to leave.

A reverse Maastricht would be legal and politically feasible
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...erendum-brexit
With strong leadership(?), pro-remain MPs could use their majority to protect UK access to the single market as part of an EU withdrawal.

"What if the Brexit camp wins the referendum on 23 June, as some polls are currently scaring sterling by suggesting? Could pro-remain MPs do as one anonymous minister told the BBC and use their parliamentary majority in a “reverse Maastricht” to protect UK access to the EU single market as part of the withdrawal?

"So the “reverse Maastricht” tactic is both legal and politically feasible. All it would take – the Norway model or any that looks better on the day – is leadership and willpower."

[bigdaddy1204]

In response to the title of this thread: yes.

What you have set out in the OP is the sensible way a country should be governed. The UK currently deviates from that significantly. Unfortunately in a representative democracy, unless the people elect good leaders, and unless good leaders put themselves forward for election, then you end up with the current situation: bad leaders doing a bad job. The solution would appear to be the ballot box but we just had an election. Arguably the quality of the candidates was part of the problem. What the reasons are for such poor quality candidates leading all the main parties, I don't know. But it needs to change, and fast. Unfortunately I see little immediate chance of that happening, but perhaps if the Tories collapse and Labour takes over that could be the catalyst for further unpredictable changes that might eventually result in better leadership (not necessarily Corbyn but perhaps someone else).

[mongrel]

You know that to be fact then? Because I think her motivation isn't some deep seated concern for Parliamentary democracy. I'm sure there has been plenty of time in her formative years in the legal profession for her to demonstrate that concern until recently don't you think?.

.My understanding is that she only got involved in politics, not party political either in 2009, her main concern is poverty.Oddly enough May's obsession with keeping total control of Brexit has seen poverty explode in Britain. Besides, Miller was right, the Court says so Whether her instincts are right again about another referendum, and she admits she had to be persuaded, is again up to the best judges Her Majesty has at her disposal. I rate them against David 'I know buggerall' Davis every time. What bothers me though is that shouldn't take the efforts of private individuals to consider these important points. Are there no constitutional experts left now?

Parliament should have a voice at a say in the Brexit process, to ensure legality under the Constitution. Since a referendum and a government mandate alone aren't sufficient to push through all the legislation that is required both before and after leaving the EU. To argue such would, and has, been the ridiculous position of the PM. But the use of Parliament to deliberately prevent or water down leaving the EU such as to render the Country as some kind of subject state, maybe constitutionally in order, but will set Parliament against large numbers of the electorate, which would be extremely bad for Parliamentary democracy in the UK..

Indeed, my observation is that party political considerations are overriding practical or even legal ones, so what you say next makes sense to me.

So you would sort out the uncertainties in the British position in the negotiating position with the EU, created by a referendum which the Supreme Court consider purely advisory, with another referendum? Seems odd that a Supreme Court would be advocating something they themselves consider flawed in deciding public policy. Why not have made Brexit the part of a new election in 2019 when agreements have been reached and we are set to leave. Then the British people can . A. Accept the conditions of the agreement. B. Not accept the agreement and leave without, or C. Not leave at all. Of course this would be a deal more open than the nefarious antics currently being pursue by the political establishment who quite obviously wish to keep as much from public involvement as possible and leave the whole process to be decided within a Parliament that didn't wish to leave.

[mongrel]

It looks like May's right hand man, Damien Green has resigned , because his right hand may have been used for an unexpected purpose, allegedly.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rn-allegations


Still it might give her the chance to get rid of some dross and draw up a more competent team.

[HannibalExMachina]

my first thought was: was he caught wanking in public? so damn close

[caratacus]

It looks like May's right hand man, Damien Green has resigned , because his right hand may have been used for an unexpected purpose, allegedly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rn-allegations

Still it might give her the chance to get rid of some dross and draw up a more competent team.

Hmm! I wonder if Green has a shoe fetish? This situation has come about directly because we have a PM who allowed her association with Green, to influence his appointment and the fact that she needed a close ally in the cabinet. Given what we know now happened in 2008 during an investigation into a Westminster leaks, and which was known by the majority of leading figures within the Party, that choice was extremely unwise. Heck, its not just any Ministerial position but Deputy leader for Gods sake! If for some reason May could not undertake her job as PM Green would have been taken charge of everything. He was set firmly in May's bunch of closet "Remainers", but I see that David Davis was one of the ones who was keen to leap to his defense and initially promised to resign from the cabinet if anything came out of the accusations. So far none of those who spoke about the matter have voiced a response, and Brexit remains in Davis's responsibility.

Quite what to make of this episode and the Government's whole approach in the Brexit negotiations is extremely unclear, save for being thoroughly untrustworthy in actions and words. How can this Country achieve anything, let alone something as important as Brexit, with this group of individuals. Sorry I've lost what little faith I had.

'No 10 knew' of Damian Green claims in 2016, claims Kate Maltby
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42449683

[mongrel]

Hmm! I wonder if Green has a shoe fetish? This situation has come about directly because we have a PM who allowed her association with Green, to influence his appointment and the fact that she needed a close ally in the cabinet. Given what we know now happened in 2008 during an investigation into a Westminster leaks, and which was known by the majority of leading figures within the Party, that choice was extremely unwise. Heck, its not just any Ministerial position but Deputy leader for Gods sake! If for some reason May could not undertake her job as PM Green would have been taken charge of everything. He was set firmly in May's bunch of closet "Remainers", but I see that David Davis was one of the ones who was keen to leap to his defense and initially promised to resign from the cabinet if anything came out of the accusations. So far none of those who spoke about the matter have voiced a response, and Brexit remains in Davis's responsibility.

Quite what to make of this episode and the Government's whole approach in the Brexit negotiations is extremely unclear, save for being thoroughly untrustworthy in actions and words. How can this Country achieve anything, let alone something as important as Brexit, with this group of individuals. Sorry I've lost what little faith I had.

Total agreement there,. I could imagine any replacement would be a remainer in order not to cause panic amongst that faction, but that would suggest selection by clique rather than talent or ability.It is no way to run a country.

Davis's department is struggling to recruit or retain staff. It can't fill a quarter of it's posts and 44% of staff want to leave within a year.. It's difficult to say whether this lazy sod is taking this important excercise seriously.

I see that the decision to invoke article 50 may be subject to legal action, the grounds being that Parliament should invoke it, not the PM. If it has legs, that is entirely down to Mrs Mayhem. O Jeremy Corbyn would not opposed Article 50 in the House, given his form.

[mongrel]

It looks like the legal action is going ahead. The crux of it is this:

The Good Law Project is saying that there is a case for giving the UK parliament the right to unilaterally cancel the Brexit process, following arguments that the UK could withdraw article 50 without the consent of other member states.

It would strengthen Westminster’s ability to abandon Brexit if the deal was so poor it was against the national interest; it would also strengthen the UK government’s hands in the negotiations to know it could withdraw its article 50 letter without needing agreement from all 27 members.

My view? This is constitutional stuff that has again been overlooked. Why was Article 50 invoked without addressing this?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rexit-go-ahead

[NorseThing]

It looks like the legal action is going ahead. The crux of it is this:

The Good Law Project is saying that there is a case for giving the UK parliament the right to unilaterally cancel the Brexit process, following arguments that the UK could withdraw article 50 without the consent of other member states.

It would strengthen Westminster’s ability to abandon Brexit if the deal was so poor it was against the national interest; it would also strengthen the UK government’s hands in the negotiations to know it could withdraw its article 50 letter without needing agreement from all 27 members.

My view? This is constitutional stuff that has again been overlooked. Why was Article 50 invoked without addressing this?


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rexit-go-ahead

I am great believer in constitutional government, but I realize that no governing party can even whisper that stuff and remain in power. An opposition party has greater room to maneuver. The Good Law Project does not even have the minor inconvenience of being in parliament as a party. Members of parliament can act without acting as a party. This can be useful and I wish them luck, but in the end their actions can be held against the party when the next election rolls by if the citizens wish to do so.

That said, the UK has made their collective bed and it will be an exit with or without any exit agreements. To do otherwise would be a grave mistake for the future of the UK parliament in any form with any composition of political parties. Of course I was in favor of a clean break, so I know my bias is showing here.

[mongrel]

I am great believer in constitutional government, but I realize that no governing party can even whisper that stuff and remain in power. An opposition party has greater room to maneuver. The Good Law Project does not even have the minor inconvenience of being in parliament as a party. Members of parliament can act without acting as a party. This can be useful and I wish them luck, but in the end their actions can be held against the party when the next election rolls by if the citizens wish to do so.

That said, the UK has made their collective bed and it will be an exit with or without any exit agreements. To do otherwise would be a grave mistake for the future of the UK parliament in any form with any composition of political parties. Of course I was in favor of a clean break, so I know my bias is showing here.

Indeed. All this technical stuff should have been done before the referendum. Cameron certainly had the time to arrange this. That way the public would have been informed that Parliament, not party would be responsible for seeing the process through. The could also have avoided this meaningless Brexit means Brexit nonsense and allow the government to concentrate on a solution that would work.

Merry Xmas all.

[Heathen Hammer]

Hmm, so if it is okay to "scrap" results of any democratic process, can we do that with all the other elections as well? We should scrap election results in France, just to make sure that public still wants Macron as their president? I'd sure love to see that happen in Canada as well with a man-child that we have for prime minister at the moment.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Hmm, so if it is okay to "scrap" results of any democratic process, can we do that with all the other elections as well? We should scrap election results in France, just to make sure that public still wants Macron as their president? I'd sure love to see that happen in Canada as well with a globalistoid man-child that we have for prime minister at the moment.

If we look at the legal basis- then yes. As in the UK's political system (as broken, undemocratic and ridiculous as it is and has been for the past few decades). Because in the UK context we have a parliamentary democracy, and for whatever reason the referendum (which are rare in the UK and don't actually 'fit' properly within the usual political framework) was not 'made' legally binding constitutionally as the Scottish Referendum was- instead there was a political commitment by the Conservatives and Labour (though not the Lib-dems or SNP iirc) to go along with the result...and then a mad panic by both brexiteers and remainers when the vote passed and everyone jumped ship, shut down and realized ' now my political career is linked to this'- May, completely unprepared activated article 50 and que the complete joke that the government has been regarding brexit.

But the important thing to note- you can't generalize democratic processes- particularly as the UK has a very undemocratic structure compared to most modern democracies anyway (It used to be justified by providing greater 'stability'- not so sure that holds water now)- but a state used to referendums like Belgium iirc for instance- sure ignoring it would be a constitutional issue, but here the 'constitutional' aspect is clear- it was advisory- hence why the lib-dems run on a platform for overturning the result and have received mixed results (Gaining votes the last GE, but being squeezed by the two big parties who stalemated with one another). Its the political commitment to brexit that keeps the process going- which of course is subject to change- If the lib dems magically somehow win the 2018 election (and lets face it, the Conservatives have ed up politically and economically and made said election certain) thent brexit would be chucked out as their manifesto is essentially 'forget brexit'- and that's part of the UK's 'democratic process' as it stands- its democracy as that's the manifesto that got them in. Thus a 'democratic referendum' here is not binding legally and is subject to the same political winds every other aspect of state policy is- again in the UK context.

So it doesn't really make sense comparing said UK referendum to elections- as they are completely different things, and an election can overturn a referendum if the manifesto stated so- Welcome to the messed up world of Britain mate- hence the constitutional crisis brexit has caused thus far, particularly as the Tories 'lost' their political mandate when the election destroyed their majority (That is what happens though when you up on the economy and domestic issues- which they have continued to do, ironically 'concentrating on brexit'...with very little to show for it- except lying, not doing any of the leg work (impact assessment scandal), and caving into the EU at every turn), while literally doing nothing domestically- literally nothing) which has resulted in the Tories devolving into their separate factions, fighting over what brexit will be and how it should be carried out and basically derailed any 'clear' pathway of brexit for them politically to latch onto. - Then we get to the beautiful mired issue of brexit being used as a means to change the country in either a full socialist manner, or full free trade manner 'by the back door' as noth parties know that in an election this would never stand, but see the oppertunity by tying it into brexit to make such things possible.

So brexit ironically carries a very 'undemocratic' element to it on its shoulders too (Henry VIII laws and the government power grab to undemocratically mitigate the minority it was given are just the tip here).

The ultimate irony at the end of this though is the Conservative brexit will be one that is literally given to them by the EU. Due to the Conservatives ineptitude in negotiating and being undemocratically secretive ...mostly to hide said ineptitude from the electorate (Looking at you Impact reports and weight committees) it will be the EU who sets the terms for the future relationship, the type of brexit, how much we pay, how much regulation we continue to adopt (Currently all of it for a period of time, with 'regulatory alignment' being indefinite) and the extent the UK is truly 'independent'. I can't remember who said it, but there was a political commentator who stated that in '2016 Britain voted to take back control, in 2017 the EU took control'- its incredibly fitting i feel to the current situation.

And indeed Merry Christmas ladies and gents, have a good one all.

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, again, the problem isn't the fact that Leave won, but rather ineptitude and incompetence of the the overall country's political elite. In other words, the fact that majority of UK's citizens want out of EU isn't an issue, it is the fact that British political elites are chronically incapable of representing their electorate due to issues such as corruption and inherent undemocratic aspects of representative democracy itself.

[mongrel]

Well, again, the problem isn't the fact that Leave won, but rather ineptitude and incompetence of the the overall country's political elite. In other words, the fact that majority of UK's citizens want out of EU isn't an issue, it is the fact that British political elites are chronically incapable of representing their electorate due to issues such as corruption and inherent undemocratic aspects of representative democracy itself.

If you had followed the near contempt of the process closely,I think you would realise that the tired old phrase 'political elite' doesn't apply here. The people running the show are rank amateurs.The reason Brexit is struggling is down to pure laziness and some obscene haste to get this delivered before Thersa May gets defenestrated.

I'm pretty sure that if the government behaved the way it should have done, that is make the impact assessments, which are supposed to be statutory, work out scenarios like costs , for example the need to hire thousands of Customs staff, new software, considered the impact on Parliamentary time, because Brexit will require at least 1000 statutory instruments, meaning no Department has a hope in hell in writing or amendment secondary legislation, and reveiws of all treaty obligations with the EU and any nation affected by Britain's withdrawal, then it would not have invoked Article 50 until this essential work was completed

Britain's institutions aren't directly responsible for the mess, The Conservative Party is , by treating this as a party political excercise rather than a policy one.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think Mongrel has hit it spot on, its as i think most of us said earlier- Brexit from the get go was essentially made 'party political' as the Conservatives for some reason at first (perhaps due to Boris and co) that brexit could have political capital and be used to brand other parties as 'undemocratic' or 'traitors' and thus for once secure the Tories a decent majority (Something which they have struggled with since Thatcher). This was dumb. Brexit could have been 'a success' (to use May's phrase) if it had been done and planned properly- there is a fascinating and very detailed paper that was floating around a few years ago which won some awards and literally planned out for the government how the UK could successfully leave the EU AND thrive- the author was an ardent 'leaver' admittedly, but it made a lot of sense...the timescale for leaving the EU given by the paper was 15 years (13 of those being before anyone thought of activating article 50)- sorting out legislation, impacts, groundwork, informally discussing trade etc, i believe it was posted in another EU thread here- will see if i can dig up- regardless it was a way that wouldn't leave the UK as a a'vassal' or in an economic crisis- what it did point out though was that brexit could not be 'rushed'.

Que the Tories a couple of years later who go full moron. Even more so that somehow they still won't make brexit cross-party as if it isn't a poisoned chalice for any one party doing it. But then again you look at their front bench... and then at who they have 'up and coming' and you realize their are no serious politicians in their ranks (A big reason why May is still there- she is ironically their best candidate- polling better- and that's still pretty dire- even more amusingly it really does look like she's going to be the one who will lead them into the next GE at this rate)

[Greyblades]

I wish that we had been offered the prepared exit option, but we werent.

The only opportunity we were presented with was the hubristic mistake of an idiotic knownothing who thought he could get us to shut up about it once and for all. And and we took it I think despite its poor chances because we knew from all the precident of lesser countries that if we didnt they would never risk allowing us another.

It is as distressing for me as it is for you that we are now in the hands of those that wish it to fail, and the more it goes 9n the more I see why people would turn to extremes when the supposed moderate factions in politics prove just as untrustworthy as the fringe.

[mongrel]

I wish that we had been offered the prepared exit option, but we werent.

The only opportunity we were presented with was the hubristic mistake of an idiotic knownothing who thought he could get us to shut up about it once and for all. And and we took it I think despite its poor chances because we knew from all the precident of lesser countries that if we didnt they would never risk allowing us another.

It is as distressing for me as it is for you that we are now in the hands of those that wish it to fail, and the more it goes 9n the more I see why people would turn to extremes when the supposed moderate factions in politics prove just as untrustworthy as the fringe.

If only your wish was granted Greyblades.


I note that , at last a proper, if not a fully comprehensive analysis is now availble. It was secret, the only reason why we know it exists is because it was leaked. MPs will now have sight of it. It seems to be a game changer, because bereft of any argument other than Brexit is red , white and blue, May is forced into explaining what on Earth her version of /Brexit looks like and Mogmentals will need to explain why a 'hard' Brexit won't destroy our economy .

If only this document was commisioned before the referendum. As summarised by Buzzfeed:

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements

It is pretty damning. The document doesn't cover a bespoke Brexit, say inclusion in Customs Union, but no free EU migration of services and people, I would guess that the hit would fall between the 5% and 2%.

As a result of the revelation of this document, May's Brexit strategy has imploded. Oh Jeremy Corbyn is being pushed to jump off the fence and accept the least worst option, full membership of the Customs Union. Remainer Tories and Blairites see this as a good chance of scuppering Brexit altogether, perhaps through a second Referendum. Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks had already washed their hands of this abortion of a project and have openly called for a second referendum.

As for the Tories? No coherent response, just open civil war.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8193611.html

[neoptolemos]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ce-brexit-vote
http://www.businessinsider.com/greek...-the-uk-2017-9

Seriously, I am bit concerned about the future of UK after reading these. I mean Greece had a really rough time but why UK get through an economic turbulence if it can be avoided?

[bigdaddy1204]

Brexit is a rejection of globalisation and neoliberalism. It is also a triumph of racism, xenophobia, ignorance and bare faced lies.

Brexit is a reflection of the failure of the British political class. It is the failure of an economic model that channelled all the wealth and jobs to London while leaving the provinces to rot.

It is also a reflection of the increasing divergence between the rich and poor, and the complete disdain of the government for large parts of the country.

It is in short a symptom of the complete break down of society and in particular a deep division between the ruling class and the ruled.

[mongrel]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ce-brexit-vote
http://www.businessinsider.com/greek...-the-uk-2017-9

Seriously, I am bit concerned about the future of UK after reading these. I mean Greece had a really rough time but why UK get through an economic turbulence if it can be avoided?

Austerity was sold as preventing the UK economy becoming like that of Greece. I quite literally want my money back.

One other issue is that Brexit is paralysing the government.

Put aside the civil war and you may note from this document that Civil Servants and Parliament are having to reveiw 19,000 EU legislative acts currently in force. I don't think the combined legislative resource of the planet can do this job properly in 2 years. The government is cutting corners by converting EU law into UK law where it is practical. The Government and Parliament will then decide whether to repeal, amend or keep them, through the Great Repeal Bill, but is planning to amend or abolish elements through secondary legislation without Parliamentary scrutiny, the Henry VII clauses. With 19,000 laws to cover before and once Brexit is done, one can readily see that the government will have no Parliamentary time to pass wind, let alone new legislation, apart from the minimum required for the Budget.The country will therefore drift for 4 and a half years unable to respond to the country's needs.