New Party leaders

[ProfessorDavey]

so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable)

Not sure that's true.

4 million people who signed an official petition don't agree.

And in a poll released today I think about 40% wanted a second referendum.

Now I agree that isn't a majority - but it certainly isn't the 'virtually everyone says would be unacceptable'.

Actually I don't see the point in a second referendum now - last week's referendum provides a trigger and mandate for the government to negotiate a brexit deal with the EU - that deal (which won't be agreed probably for 2 years and wouldn't come into force until 2018 at the earliest) should then be put to a second and final referendum where we choose either the Brexit deal on offer or to remain.

[Nearly Sane]

 

Dear Sane,

Which country would that be??

Gonnagle.

The country where people make enormous sacrifices and efforts to carry out public service as politicians. People who serve on councils across the land, many of the MPs, MSPs Welsh Assembly members, MEPs etc etc. We have what seems a dysfunctional political system in some ways at the top but even there while for example I dislike Teresa May's politics, she seems to meet your criteria.


Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.

[ProfessorDavey]

The country where people make enormous sacrifices and efforts to carry out public service as politicians. People who serve on councils across the land, many of the MPs, MSPs Welsh Assembly members, MEPs etc etc. We have what seems a dysfunctional political system in some ways at the top but even there while for example I dislike Teresa May's politics, she seems to meet your criteria.


Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.

I think that's right.

The way the media portrays politicians really is appalling. I met loads and although I might disagree on policies and political ideology the one thing that is almost always the case is that they are exceptionally hard working, diligent and also genuinely want to help people.

And that applies to every level - so the local councillors, MPs, MEPs and EU commission members that I know.

[L.A.]

Problem with that is that a Norway style deal would necessarily involve free movement. Now actually for remainers Norway style EEA membership is the best non-EU membership outcome. But it would have many, many brexiters spitting blood. To a brexiter driven by a desire to curb migration EEA Norway style is frankly no better than EU membership, arguably even worse as we'd be required to grant free movement to all new EU accession states but wouldn't have a veto over whether they could join.

Yes, I was making those very points on this board before the vote.

So there would be no mandate from the public for EEA Norway style deal.

The referendum was to simply leave the EU, what happened after was left undefined.

Hence my view will be that, probably in 2018 once negotiations are complete the government will need to put the actual Brexit deal to the electorate in a referendum (rather than previous referendum where there was nothing to indicate what Brexit actually meant).

And this is actually rather similar to the views I had on IndyRef - a two stage approach - first referendum to give a mandate to negotiate a deal for independence - a second referendum once the deal was agree to actually action it and become independent (or otherwise).

These decisions are frankly far too important to be a one-off event - there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that:

1. There is a clear and settled view from the public on the course of action and

2. That what the public are agreeing to is absolutely clear, in other words a binding deal.

I honestly don't think we can just put the economy 'on hold' for two years then start  with more referendums and public consultations. That would prolong the uncertainty massively and cause deep damage to the economy.

I'd say we have to go for the best Norway deal we can get and start rebuilding, and if we have to accept free movement of people - so be it! We need to get the show back on the road.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that's right.

The way the media portrays politicians really is appalling. I met loads and although I might disagree on policies and political ideology the one thing that is almost always the case is that they are exceptionally hard working, diligent and also genuinely want to help people.

And that applies to every level - so the local councillors, MPs, MEPs and EU commission members that I know.

Indeed, and I know of many people who have an interest in politics and would want to help people but who don't see it as worth the hassle and the abuse they would receive.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Jo Cox was not someone who was atypical of politicians in this country. She was all too typical of someone working immensely hard to change the world for what she saw as better.

Sorry

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I honestly don't think we can just put the economy 'on hold' for two years then start  with more referendums and public consultations. That would prolong the uncertainty massively and cause deep damage to the economy.

But that is going to happen anyway - even if we triggered article 50 tomorrow it is going to take years to sort out the actual deal on the table. And in that period there will remain uncertainty.

Actually my approach probably allows the process to progress quicker, because it will make triggering article 50 less final. Problem is currently that I suspect no one will want to trigger article 50 and everything shifts further down the road even to the point where it never gets triggered and we remain 'by accident'.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Sorry

Gonnagle.

I am reminded of the lyric from Dexy's Midnight Runners 'Alcoholics, child molesters,nervous wrecks,prima donnas, jilted lovers, office clerks, petty thieves,hard drug pursuers,  lonely tramps, awkward misfit, any one of these' - politicians are not different. They have their saints and sinners, usually both in each one of them.

[jeremyp]

I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.

So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).

My preference would be as follows:

1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.

2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.

3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.

4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.

5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.

6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU

7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.

There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.

I think that's a brilliant plan with only one small problem:

Having triggered article 50, there would have to be some horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it. I think we would lose our rebate, but that would be a small price to pay in my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that's a brilliant plan with only one small problem:

Having triggered article 50, there would have to be some horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it. I think we would lose our rebate, but that would be a small price to pay in my opinion.

That's the key point in number 1, to check.

Given that only a single member state can trigger article 50 (it can be done by other states to impose leaving) then quite possibly (again serious legal opinion needed) that the member state who triggered article 50 can then withdraw it up to the point when they actually leave and fold back into continuing as a member state as they were.

So I'm not sure we would have any need to do some 'horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it' but we'd need to check in advance of course.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's the key point in number 1, to check.

Given that only a single member state can trigger article 50 (it can be done by other states to impose leaving) then quite possibly (again serious legal opinion needed) that the member state who triggered article 50 can then withdraw it up to the point when they actually leave and fold back into continuing as a member state as they were.

So I'm not sure we would have any need to do some 'horse trading to get the other EU members to allow us the option of rescinding it' but we'd need to check in advance of course.

This article on the matter is interesting:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

They imply that it is ambiguous whether once a member state has triggered article 50 they can subsequently withdraw it.

In pragmatic terms it may be helpful to clarify this from the perspective of both the UK and the EU. And it is in the interests of both that it can be withdrawn.

Otherwise we are kind of in grid-lock - the EU cannot negotiate on exit terms without formal notification of intention to exit (triggering article 50) and the UK cannot really trigger article 50 without being confident that exit terms are in the UK's national interest. Result stalemate.

Were article 50 to be able to be withdrawn then it would allow triggering at the earliest stage without undue risk on either side.

[Harrowby Hall]

Thank you very much for providing this.

A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.

1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.

2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you very much for providing this.

A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.

1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.

2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.

I am really against the % of the total electorate line as it effectively gives a vote for whichever side isthe status quo to the dead and the dead lazy  still on the register.  I think a threshold of those who vote makes sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thank you very much for providing this.

A couple of thoughts about the whole affair.

1 In the British parliamentary life, there appears to be a planning horizon of five years. No government likes to consider to closely life after the next general election. Any Brexit management commission should surely be all-party to ensure that there is a single, progressive programme with identified objectives.

Agree - see my post on this on the 'Red on Red, Labour implode' thread.

2 I think that we may have seen the last of "the referendum" as a decision making procedure. Referendums (? -da) do not sit comfortably in our model of representative democracy. About 63% of the electorate did not vote in favour of leaving the EU but it cannot be argued that people who took no part in the referendum do not deserve to be considered. There is a case for considering that any change of this importance should be supported by more than 50% of the total electorate before being actioned.

Again you are right, although not sure we've seen the last of referendums.

But this is where a decision needs, independently, to be approved by both parliament and also a referendum (if that is going to be used.

Parliament and MPs should not be bound by a referendum result (indeed in most cases they are advisory) - why because they have to take account of broader considerations, e.g. legality (most obviously) but also they have a duty to consider all people in the UK not just those who voted in the referendum, and certainly not just those who voted a particular way.

So an MPs constituents include everyone living there - so those who voted, those who were on the register but didn't vote, those who were ineligible (e.g. under 18s, non UK EU nationals permanently living here) etc etc.

So while 17 million voted in to leave and 16 million to remain, our population is 65 million, so that means that only 25% of the UK population have voted to leave. MPs need to consider the interests of all 65 million people not just the eligible to vote 46 million, nor the voting 33 million, or even just the leave voting 17 million.

[Harrowby Hall]

Agree - see my post on this on the 'Red on Red, Labour implode' thread.

Forgive me. I had not seen your other - excellent - post.

[Hope]

I am really against the % of the total electorate line as it effectively gives a vote for whichever side isthe status quo to the dead and the dead lazy  still on the register.  I think a threshold of those who vote makes sense.

Most organisational constitutions required a 66% majority of those who vote for a situation of equivalent importance.

[Nearly Sane]

Most organisational constitutions required a 66% majority of those who vote for a situation of equivalent importance.

Not entirely sure why you putbthe bold on there. Part of the difference between such votes and referendums, such as the one just past, is the referendum is advisory.

[Brownie]

Just saw this, looks as though Andrea is now second favourite:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-leadership-andrea-leadsom-emerges-to-rival-theresa-may-a7114916.html

[SweetPea]

Yes, I was very taken with Andrea Leadsom having seen her in a couple of debates. She appeared calm, down-to-earth (for want of a better term) and had a strength and stability to her conversation. Someone mentioned her being 'wooden' but I wondered if she was perhaps nervous in the first debate. Andrew Marr also interviewed her a couple of weeks before the referendum, where she seemed more relaxed.

Theresa May concerns me a little re becoming PM simply because she always seems to look exhausted.

[Brownie]

That's not unusual Rose - sometimes people age ten years once they come into power too!  I saw that with Messrs Blair and Obama.  Once out they recover somewhat.  Cameron seems to look as youthful as ever and presumably will be even more so come October.  Ed Miliband, whom I saw on QT a few weeks ago, is a new man, he was quite witty too.
Boris will remain the same, I quite like Boris but am glad he isn't standing for PM;  mayor is one thing, people like a 'character', but prime minister is quite another.

Anyway, back to Teresa May.   She may be like Maggie T (not tooooo much please!), whose appearance improved dramatically as she was empowered. 

I think Teresa May will win but, as recent events have shown, we never can tell.  I'll have to learn a bit more about Andrea Leadsom.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, I was very taken with Andrea Leadsom having seen her in a couple of debates.

Must have been watching a different debate to me - which is unlikely as there were only two.

I didn't see the first debate, I did see the second and I wasn't impressed with her at all, despite having heard loads of hype from the first debate. Yes it was me who said she looked wooden. To me she came across in a completely unnatural way, talking in soundbites rather than actually debating. Every answer she stared at the camera (obviously been trained, but it is supposed to look natural), chirped out 'take back control' and then do a little smirk as if she'd done what her handlers had told her. The audience even got restless and irritated, pretty well laughing at her when she spouted out the same phrase yet another time.

Nonetheless, apparently for reasons that elude me she impressed you. But, and this is the key point, her few minutes in front of camera in those two debates is the sum total of anything impressive she has done in politics. That is the only reason anyone is suggesting her as leader of the party.

So simply question is that debate sufficient (there isn't anything else and had she not been in the debate I doubt virtually anyone would have even heard of her) for her to become not just leader of the tories, but instantly PM.

As I said yesterday in these most challenging of times she would be the most inexperienced PM on attaining the position since Napoleonic times (or even further back, again I got bored).

And of course she wasn't even the most impressive Tory - that clearly was Ruth Davidson.

[jeremyp]

The problem with this Leadsom person is that she has barely done anything significant in politics. She has been a minor minister which, I guess, puts her ahead of Jeremy Corbyn, but she is pretty much an unknown quantity.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem with this Leadsom person is that she has barely done anything significant in politics. She has been a minor minister which, I guess, puts her ahead of Jeremy Corbyn, but she is pretty much an unknown quantity.

Her views on what Brexit should be are also very worrying - she seems disinterested in the single market, which most other people seem to consider to be essential to retain access to.

Her position on social issues is pretty unclear too - she was only one of 5 tory MPs to abstain on gay marriage - make of that what you will.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We need Plans from all the candidates to say how things would proceed and how Brexit dovetails into their manifesto for government. Being a brexiteers is not enough.
Then we have to ask  Leadsom, Gove and Fox why this was not forthcoming during the Leave campaign.

[L.A.]

We need Plans from all the candidates to say how things would proceed and how Brexit dovetails into their manifesto for government. Being a brexiteers is not enough.
Then we have to ask  Leadsom, Gove and Fox why this was not forthcoming during the Leave campaign.

I think the answer is obvious: The Leave Campaign as a whole had no plan. Various individuals spouted out various spurious ideas as if they were fully though out options, and strangely the media never really probed too much, but the fact is NO ONE HAD A FUCKING CLUE!

. .  .and they still don't!