Brexit process

[UndercoverElephant]

Stephen Bush on prospects of a hard Brexit...

That's the question occupying the minds of various MPs. 

The series of votes that saw Brexit delayed past 29 March were facilitated by the government's defeat way back in December 2017, thanks to an amendment by Dominic Grieve and the successful efforts of Westminster's various opposition parties. 

But the government's obligations under that amendment have been exhausted by the various meaningful votes which means that there is no technical reason why a government led by Dominic Raab or Esther McVey or Boris Johnson couldn't simply prorogue parliament until 31 October and secure a no deal Brexit without Parliament's consent.

That's part of why Conservative opponents of no deal are getting organised to prevent the election of a committed no dealer now, and why Philip Hammond will use his address to the CBI's annual dinner tonight to warn against the the consequences of no deal. 

In practice, that even advocates of no deal talk up a “managed� non-negotiated exit from the bloc means that you would need parliamentary consent to prepare for no deal.

Park for a moment the reality is that preparing for no deal is a titanic, essentially impossible undertaking. To do it properly would require substantial increases in both public and private spending in order for the public services, the supermarkets, port authorities and so on to be truly ready. Serious preparation for no deal would take place against a backdrop of market panic and increasingly shrill business lobbying. Support for no deal - which has never been above a third of the public - should be compared with support for the £12.5bn of welfare cuts, which commanded majority support in both the country and in Parliament in theory. In practice, trying to implement even £3.5bn of them broke the back of David Cameron's government, ended George Osborne's leadership hopes and quite probably tipped the balance in the referendum.  thanks to the substantial increases in public and private spending in order for government, supermarkets, port authorities and so on to be truly ready, against a backdrop of market. 

But if you want to start talking seriously about the compulsory purchases, the buying of warehouses, and the price increases for ordinary consumers, then Parliament is going to have to be involved and will have opportunities to prevent it. 

The bigger risk is that the majority against no deal in Parliament simply evaporates. Talk of a managed no deal has well and truly entered the mainstream of Conservative thinking - that Amber Rudd, in launching a group designed expressly to prevent it, has to talk about no deal as an undesirable but possible outcome, is an indicator of where the mood of the Tory party is moving. 

Throw in the difficult selection battles for prominent pro-European Conservatives, like Philip Lee and Sam Gyimah, and the shock to the system that the likely victory of the Brexit party and the problem may not be that Parliament lacks the opportunities to stop no deal, but that it loses the will to do so. 

Suits me if it does, but I remain unconvinced it is actually going to happen.

[clv101]

Theresa May: Brexit has "proved harder than I anticipated".

[Lord Beria3]

Its interesting because Stephen Bush, from the NS, is from the left of the political spectrum and has always thought that the majority against no-deal was rock solid within the House of Commons.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.berenberg.de/files/MacroNew ... BREXIT.pdf

Interesting. Even the bulls at Berenberg Bank seem rather despondent about the prospects of a orderly Brexit deal although they still think that a hard Brexit is only 20%.

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: May's "bold new offer".

This is a fork in the road. As I currently understand it, she's offering MPs a choice between taking one or another option off the table for good.

If the bill passes, then no deal is off the table. MPs will then be able to amend various things, including whether or not there is a second referendum, which presumably would be between the deal and remain. But this is surely going to end up as remaining, because there is no incentive for remainers to vote for the deal but some leavers think the deal is worse than remaining, and remainers will do whatever they can to make the deal unattractive to leavers.

If the bill fails then May's deal is finally certified dead and we are left with a fight between no deal and revoke.

EDIT: After watching Newsnight, looks pretty certain it will fail. Either that or May will pull it and resign.

[Little John]

Revoke leads to the quick death of the Tories and the only slightly slower death of Labour in their current forms.

[UndercoverElephant]

Revoke leads to the quick death of the Tories and the only slightly slower death of Labour in their current forms.

Everything leads to the death of the tories, and I still don't understand why you think Labour faces an existential threat. Labour's core is not under threat. Labour'support is being eroded, but the party is not going to split.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ssm_Jw ... e=youtu.be

[Lord Beria3]

A no deal Brexit wouldn't cause the death of the Tories.

That's the option that has majority support among its 2017 voting electorate and could pick up support from other non traditional bits of the population who have never voted Tory before.

It would also deflate the Brexit Party.

[UndercoverElephant]

A no deal Brexit wouldn't cause the death of the Tories.

Different sort of death. That outcome saves them as far as their hardcore euroskeptic support is concerned, but makes them unelectable.

[Lord Beria3]

Why? Around 40 per cent of the public back it (enough for a majority) and if done well could lead to a economic boom.

A hard Brexit could save the Tories and reconnect it with wage earning brits and turn the Tories into a mass populist party like the GOP post Trump (which is looking likely to win again in 2020).

More of the same will be political suicide for the Tories.

Greer...

Forecastingintelligence, unless something changes very drastically by the time of the next UK general election, the Tories may be facing the kind of electoral annihilation that ended the Liberal Party as a significant political force in 1922. One recent survey I saw indicated that if a general election was held today, Labour would win a narrow majority, the Brexit Party would be the opposition party with 11 fewer seats than Labour, and the Tories would have all of three seats in the House of Commons. If Farage does as he’s announced he’ll do, and unveil a detailed political platform for the Brexit Party once the EP elections are over, I expect to see continued shifts of pro-Leave voters in his favor; I would not be at all surprised if Brexiteer MPs begin to bail out of the Tory camp to join the Brexit Party; and if Corbyn continues to try to finesse the Brexit question, he may lose a lot of pro-Leave Labour voters in the midlands and the north.

[Little John]

Latest YouGov EU election poll:

Brexit Party - 37%
Con - 7%
Lab - 13%
Lib Dem - 19%
SNP - 3%
Plaid Cymru - 1%
Green - 12%
UKIP - 3%
Change UK - 4%
Other - 2%

[UndercoverElephant]

Why? Around 40 per cent of the public back it (enough for a majority)

Because that 40% includes a significant chunk of people like me, who so despise the tories that we would never vote for them, even if it was the only way to get brexit. I will vote for the brexit party - I'd even vote for them in a general election if I didn't live in a tight lab-tory marginal - but I'd sooner burn the polling station down than put a tick in the tory box.

[Little John]

So, your political tribal loyalties trump your loyalty to democracy itself.

Okay thanks. That's clear now

[UndercoverElephant]

So, your political tribal loyalties trump your loyalty to democracy itself.

Okay thanks. That's clear now

Our system is not democratic. First Past The Post forces a tactical/strategic response.

This has been my intention from the start. One of the main reasons I voted to leave the EU was that I believed it was possible that a victory for Leave would destroy the tory party.

Also, it is not "loyalty". I am not a loyal labour voter, having voted green and libdem in the past. I am an anti-tory, not a pro-labour. I will vote for anyone or anything if I think it will damage the tory party.

[Little John]

So, your political tribal loyalties trump your loyalty to democracy itself.

Okay thanks. That's clear now

Our system is not democratic. First Past The Post forces a tactical/strategic response.

This has been my intention from the start. One of the main reasons I voted to leave the EU was that I believed it was possible that a victory for Leave would destroy the tory party.

Also, it is not "loyalty". I am not a loyal labour voter, having voted green and libdem in the past. I am an anti-tory, not a pro-labour. I will vote for anyone or anything if I think it will damage the tory party.

You are also, it would seem, content to see democracy in this country, imperfect as it is, trashed in the pursuance of your goals.

Be careful what you wish for.