Brexit process

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, you are in no position to claim with any authority that "Remain would almost certainly win" another referendum.

The evidence is that a referendum held today would result in a further leave victory.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 20286.html

Brexit: Remain would win if new EU referendum vote were held tomorrow, poll finds

Survation survey shows 54 per cent of Britons would now prefer to stay in Europe

[Little John]

....the people who are voting leave tend to be either on the Thatcherite Right of British politics or the Corbynite Left....

I am not so sure about that UE. Without knowing the precise demographic breakdown of the extra votes picked up by Labour at the election, we are left to guess in the dark.

My guess is that many of the votes picked up in Scotland, for both the Tories and Labour were Leave votes. Similarly, the expected collapse of the Labour votes in the Midlands and North were arguably headed off by picking up working class Leave votes who were looking for an excuse to vote Labour. And Corbyn gave them that excuse. But only just. Similarly, only a very slight triangulation of message in the wrong direction in the next election will lose them just as quickly. In other words, when push comes to shove, Labour are going to have to shit or get off the pot with regards to their Brexit message.

Are the numbers on demography of votes available anywhere?

[johnhemming2]

The final opinion polls were 52 remain, 48 leave.

[UndercoverElephant]

Labour are going to have to shit or get off the pot with regards to their Brexit message.

To some extent they already have: Corbyn sacked three ministers for supporting Ummuna's amendment. That makes clear that Corbyn is supporting Brexit, and so long as there is no coherent position from the Tories, that is enough. There is no point in making life easier for the Tories in any way, shape or form - we want them to totally f*ck up the early stages of Brexit negotiations and descend into civil war, get rid of May and then go through a bitter leadership election where the details of Brexit can no longer be avoided. If Corbyn has got any sense then he'll stick to his current position of "We'll try to negotiate access to the single market without freedom of movement", regardless of the fact that the EU wouldn't agree to this, until there's either a new Tory leader and a new Tory position on Brexit, and/or there's another election with May still in place.

This is like the build up to a crucial military confrontation: there is no point in Corbyn re-arranging his own forces while the opposition is being forced into damaging internal struggle. The one advantage of being in opposition is that he can continue to sit on the fence to some extent while the Tories are being forced to make difficult choices that could potentially tear their party in two. To mix metaphors, he can keep his powder dry while the tories are forced to use their's on each other.

[Lord Beria3]

UE - I think you are over-complicating things a bit here.

Hard Brexit is about returning sovereignty back to Westminster .e.g. our courts, borders and economy policy.

What future British governments will do with those returned powers is up to them and the British electorate of course.

Whether you are a Thatcherite Tory Leave voter who wants to see sovereignty returned to the UK or a socialist Labour voter who wants to be able to elect a future Labour government that can actively support and nationalize our industrial base (both illegal under the EU), you both want a Hard Brexit.

My own personal experience is that most Tory Leave voters didn't vote Leave for some kind of Singapore style Thatcherite utopia but to restore border controls and regain control over our sovereignty.

Whatever their individual reasons, I think that there is a broad common interest on all sides of the Leave electorate for a Hard Brexit that sees powers returned to Westminster. After that the discussion can kick off about what kind of post-Brexit Britain we want.

[johnhemming2]

Sovereignty.

We have always had sovereignty. We, have agreed, as a country with other countries to follow various treaties. We are proposing to pull out of those relating to the European Union. We can do this because we have sovereignty.

There is no need for a civil war for us to leave the EU. That is because we constitutionally can withdraw.

We will replace the EU with other international agreements. The compromises in those are likely to be much the same as the EU agreements except that the rules we will have to follow are unlikely to be ones that we have participated in setting.

At the moment Theresa May's "Hard Brexit" is to propose that only people from the EU who have lived here for 5 years have full rights to benefits (including tax credits). David Cameron had negotiated a figure of 4 years for full qualification whilst remaining within the EU.

Sadly no-one really discussed the deal David Cameron had negotiated in the referendum debate. The 4 year proposal was good. Also allowing national parliament to hold back EU legislation was good.

Such is life.

[Little John]

No

The political class, to which you belong, had sovereignty. We, the people did not.

In other words, we, the people, could not vote in a government on a ticket of migration controls that went against the policies of the EU or fisheries controls or enacting laws that went against those of the EU.

[UndercoverElephant]

UE - I think you are over-complicating things a bit here.

Hard Brexit is about returning sovereignty back to Westminster .e.g. our courts, borders and economy policy.

What future British governments will do with those returned powers is up to them and the British electorate of course.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that leaving the EU and what happens afterwards are different things. But it is important that people are conscious of what "leaving the EU" entails. For example, if we "leave the EU" but still allow freedom of movement, a lot of people will feel totally cheated.

Whether you are a Thatcherite Tory Leave voter who wants to see sovereignty returned to the UK or a socialist Labour voter who wants to be able to elect a future Labour government that can actively support and nationalize our industrial base (both illegal under the EU), you both want a Hard Brexit.

Sure, I am not disagreeing with that.

Whatever their individual reasons, I think that there is a broad common interest on all sides of the Leave electorate for a Hard Brexit that sees powers returned to Westminster. After that the discussion can kick off about what kind of post-Brexit Britain we want.

The discussion about what kind of post-Brexit Britain we want has to take place now - it has to take place before the negotiations get serious. But it also has to be led by the Tories, since they are the ones who are actually supposed to be doing the negotiations.

[UndercoverElephant]

The final opinion polls were 52 remain, 48 leave.

Survation was the only pollster to get the election right, apart from Yougov.

[Lord Beria3]

Regaining control of our borders was a key reason for the Leave vote and it was the reason why I voted Leave.

Indeed, many Remain voters would have liked to see controls in place for migration as well, although it wasn't a big enough reason to vote to leave the EU.

There is a general consensus across the political parties that Britain must regain control of our migration policy/borders which means we will end up with some form of Hard Brexit. Corbyn and May are united on that point at least.

The primary purpose over the next 2 years is to ensure that a Hard Brexit happens. After that the competing visions of a post-Brexit Britain can play out in full.

Without that pressure for a full regaining of our sovereignty, the rest is mere talk. Labour Leave voters need to pressure their Labour MP's to reject soft Brexit as it will kill off any future Labour government being able to make any meaningful changes to our economic destiny.

[johnhemming2]

No

The political class, to which you belong, had sovereignty. We, the people did not.

In other words, we, the people, could not vote in a government on a ticket of migration controls that went against the policies of the EU or fisheries controls or enacting laws that went against those of the EU.

What prevented people from voting for UKIP, for example?

[Little John]

What prevented people from voting for UKIP?

At the micro level, the conservatives and labour making just sufficient enough noises about Brexit to keep them at bay. At the macro level, a mainstream media that makes sure the overten window of public political discourse is kept within strict parameters

However, that being said, when reality becomes sufficiently diverged from that narrative, even despite the best attempts of the media to keep the public discourse under control, sudden, step changes can occur.

But, you already know all of this.

[johnhemming2]

It remains, however, that we are likely to have less sovereignty post Brexit than beforehand. (simple because we will have to accept rules we have no part in setting).

[UndercoverElephant]

It remains, however, that we are likely to have less sovereignty post Brexit than beforehand. (simple because we will have to accept rules we have no part in setting).

Only if we end up with the "soft brexit" that almost nobody actually wants.

[johnhemming2]

When it comes to trade rules they will be defined by the EU.