The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

I don't care where you get those figures but they don't seem right me at all.

 

Labour tend to have younger voters, whilst the vote leave brigade tend to be older.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2018 at 20:54 ----------

 

According to Electoral Commission's provisional figured published ahead of the EU referendum there were 46,000,197 people "eligible and registered" to vote in the May 2016 referendum.

17,410,742 voted to leave the EU, around 36%

Edited September 24, 2018 by El Cid

I know, but you look at the constituencies who really voted leave a lot were labour. But given those figures it makes corbyns path over the last two years absolutely mystifying.

 

Yes but in those Labour constituencies the Leave vote was made up of Conservatives, UKippers and nationalist party supporters as well as Labour.

 

Nothing mystifying at all about Corbyn's path over the last two years as he is a diehard Eurosceptic and could throw up his hands and say 'Oh well, the people have voted" and step back and watch the Tories try to do the impossible in negotiations.

 

For a supposedly political animal, Corbyn is tactically very suspect. It is inevitable that the election of a left of centre Labour government would lead to a run on the pound forcing a chancellor to introduce controls probably within hours of the victory. Not an insurmountable problem but not a good start to a radical agenda.

 

If Labour stood on a 'sack off Brexit' manifesto and won a workable majority, the sigh of relief in world markets, particularly the financial markets, would give sterling possibly the biggest shot in the arm in its history. So not only would a left of centre Labour government come to power but it would come to power where they would have a ton of money to carry out their renationalisation promises in one term rather than two. A win win for McDonnell. And remember, Labour standing on a repeal Atricle 50 ticket would give a massive boost to UKIP who would split the Tory vote. Yes, Labour supporters in Leave constituencies may well vote UKIP but all that would do is ensure a Labour victory.

 

This is possibly the only time in modern history when this could happen. If I can see it, why can't Corbyn?

Yes but in those Labour constituencies the Leave vote was made up of Conservatives, UKippers and nationalist party supporters as well as Labour.

 

Nothing mystifying at all about Corbyn's path over the last two years as he is a diehard Eurosceptic and could throw up his hands and say 'Oh well, the people have voted" and step back and watch the Tories try to do the impossible in negotiations.

 

For a supposedly political animal, Corbyn is tactically very suspect. It is inevitable that the election of a left of centre Labour government would lead to a run on the pound forcing a chancellor to introduce controls probably within hours of the victory. Not an insurmountable problem but not a good start to a radical agenda.

 

If Labour stood on a 'sack off Brexit' manifesto and won a workable majority, the sigh of relief in world markets, particularly the financial markets, would give sterling possibly the biggest shot in the arm in its history. So not only would a left of centre Labour government come to power but it would come to power where they would have a ton of money to carry out their renationalisation promises in one term rather than two. A win win for McDonnell. And remember, Labour standing on a repeal Atricle 50 ticket would give a massive boost to UKIP who would split the Tory vote. Yes, Labour supporters in Leave constituencies may well vote UKIP but all that would do is ensure a Labour victory.

 

This is possibly the only time in modern history when this could happen. If I can see it, why can't Corbyn?

 

He's hoping for a general election - the tories won't make that mistake again and certainly not before brexit is signed and sealed. And once it's signed and sealed corbyn can't do much about it can he?

I know, but you look at the constituencies who really voted leave a lot were labour. But given those figures it makes corbyns path over the last two years absolutely mystifying.

 

That data is two years old......

 

There is the whole electorate to think about. Labour cannot win with just their own supporters in a general election.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2018 at 21:28 ----------

 

He's hoping for a general election - the tories won't make that mistake again and certainly not before brexit is signed and sealed. And once it's signed and sealed corbyn can't do much about it can he?

 

The parliamentary arithmetic doesn't allow for that to happen. Brexit as it stands will not be signed.

 

And once it's signed and sealed corbyn can't do much about it can he?

 

I guess that's what he's hoping for. In an interview at the TUC last week McDonnel said something which gave me the impression that he has his fingers crossed for an election after next March.

 

What neither McDonnell nor Corbyn don't seem to realise is when it does all come on top, the public will blame Labour and the Tories equally for the mess.

That data is two years old......

 

There is the whole electorate to think about. Labour cannot win with just their own supporters in a general election.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2018 at 21:28 ----------

 

 

The parliamentary arithmetic doesn't allow for that to happen. Brexit as it stands will not be signed.

 

But he'd Hoover up lib dems and probably a few disaffected tories.

 

Brexit will be signed, I have no idea in what form, but there's no way it won't be. There won't be a people's vote, and any deal will go through Parliament. There certainly won't be a general election. The key players, namely the majority of the conservatives and crucially the DUP won't want one. The latter have power now, they won't after the next election.

 

---------- Post added 24-09-2018 at 21:44 ----------

 

I guess that's what he's hoping for. In an interview at the TUC last week McDonnel said something which gave me the impression that he has his fingers crossed for an election after next March.

 

What neither McDonnell nor Corbyn don't seem to realise is when it does all come on top, the public will blame Labour and the Tories equally for the mess.

 

But surely he can't? Once we're out - in whatever form - we can't suddenly change the terms. Nobody would get anything done. I can't believe the eu wouldn't just tell corbyn - or Johnson if you like - to do one if they want a different brexit after next March.

This whole debacle shows how badly served we have been for many years now by the political classes at central level. (There has been a similar decline in calibre in local politics too).

In my view, as one who served an organisation representing local industry and commerce in the 1970s and, later, as an academic in the fields of politics, economics and public management, not only is the scope of the current debate between hard or soft brexit (or no deal at all) largely irrelevant but the most significant arguments for remaining within Europe are being mostly overlooked whilst primary attention is given to arguments from left and right about immigrants, government spending and perceived savings should we leave etc etc.

The truth is that, firstly, this issue should never have been the subject of a referendum; secondly, the global economic system will be largely unaffected by whatever outcome and will continue to recruit the best qualified and cheapest labour (so the right-voting British working classes, having voted for Brexit, will, ironically, still be the losers); thirdly, we will probably return to the archaic trade deals and practices we had before the EEC to our cost; and, lastly, we will lose our influence within Europe as an instigator of reform and change from within.

One of the major arguments for being within the European organisation is hardly ever mentioned, that is, to affect and sustain the balance of power, the fall of which was the cause of both World Wars. Winston Churchill recognised the need to move closer to Europe for this purpose as well as that of trade, hence his 'Three Circles' foreign policy.

We need a general election to decide, not the terms of any Brexit deal, but whether the country really wishes to leave Europe after spending so long in trying to join. Unfortunately, the damage has been done and our reputation as a nation is probably in tatters for a long time to come.

Much of the discussion is irrelevant, simplistic and foolish. What will happen economically will happen anyway whatever the politicians decide or think.

Factually, the political education of the general population is abysmal and, as Churchill himself said, one has only to speak to the average voter for a few minutes to realise what a mistake it was to extend democracy. Philosophically, Rousseau was wrong and Hobbes was right and we are about to suffer the consequences.

Edited September 24, 2018 by johnlittle

]But surely he can't? Once we're out - in whatever form - we can't suddenly change the terms. Nobody would get anything done. I can't believe the eu wouldn't just tell corbyn - or Johnson if you like - to do one if they want a different brexit after next March.

You couldn't suddenly change the terms of the withdrawal agreement (assuming there is one), sure...but the future relationship (what starts in 2021, when the withdrawal agreement ends) would still be up for extensive negotiations. From just about scratch.

 

One the biggest mistakes of the Tories has been to try to negotiate that as well as the withdrawal agreement, and the biggest bar in the spokes of that particular wheel has been, and remains, the NI border issue (and Gib', since most everyone keeps forgetting about them), because that's a ball-and-chain for the future relationship.

This whole debacle shows how badly served we have been for many years now by the political classes at central level. (There has been a similar decline in calibre in local politics too).

In my view, as one who served an organisation representing local industry and commerce in the 1970s and, later, as an academic in the fields of politics, economics and public management, not only is the scope of the current debate between hard or soft brexit (or no deal at all) largely irrelevant but the most significant arguments for remaining within Europe are being mostly overlooked whilst primary attention is given to arguments from left and right about immigrants, government spending and perceived savings should we leave etc etc.

The truth is that, firstly, this issue should never have been the subject of a referendum; secondly, the global economic system will be largely unaffected by whatever outcome and will continue to recruit the best qualified and cheapest labour (so the right-voting British working classes, having voted for Brexit, will, ironically, still be the losers); thirdly, we will probably return to the archaic trade deals and practices we had before the EEC to our cost; and, lastly, we will lose our influence within Europe as an instigator of reform and change from within.

One of the major arguments for being within the European organisation is hardly ever mentioned, that is, to affect and sustain the balance of power, the fall of which was the cause of both World Wars. Winston Churchill recognised the need to move closer to Europe for this purpose as well as that of trade, hence his 'Three Circles' foreign policy.

We need a general election to decide, not the terms of any Brexit deal, but whether the country really wishes to leave Europe after spending so long in trying to join. Unfortunately, the damage has been done and our reputation as a nation is probably in tatters for a long time to come.

Much of the discussion is irrelevant, simplistic and foolish. What will happen economically will happen anyway whatever the politicians decide or think.

Factually, the political education of the general population is abysmal and, as Churchill himself said, one has only to speak to the average voter for a few minutes to realise what a mistake it was to extend democracy. Philosophically, Rousseau was wrong and Hobbes was right and we are about to suffer the consequences.

 

I'm afraid your post sums up quite magnificently why so many people chose to ignore the wishes of a remote, haughty elite and vote to Leave the EU.

 

I do agree with you on some things though, as I believe that the global economic system will barely register a blip due to Brexit in the long term.

 

But overall your post reeks of old fashioned deference to an out of touch elite which, in this digital age, belongs in the twentieth century dustbin of history.

 

I can't believe the eu wouldn't just tell corbyn - or Johnson if you like - to do one if they want a different brexit after next March.

 

Corbyn, during an interview over the weekend suggested that if Teresa May couldn't get a good deal with Europe she should move over and let Labour have a go. When he was asked what Labour could achieve that the Tories hadn't, he waffled a bit but said nothing.

 

The EU has such a powerful hand in these negotiations that there is a maximum that can be achieved and no one on the UK side can change that. If our negotiations were a car going round Brands Hatch it would be running on three cylinders. It doesn't matter whether May, Corbyn, Boris the Clown or Faridge himself was driving it, it is always going to come second in the race.

I'm afraid your post sums up quite magnificently why so many people chose to ignore the wishes of a remote, haughty elite and vote to Leave the EU.

 

I do agree with you on some things though, as I believe that the global economic system will barely register a blip due to Brexit in the long term.

 

But overall your post reeks of old fashioned deference to an out of touch elite which, in this digital age, belongs in the twentieth century dustbin of history.

 

I'm afraid your summing-up couldn't be further from the truth. My arguments are based on research, knowledge, experience and fact. They happen to be left-wing and not deferential in the slightest to any elite, political or otherwise.

Your first paragraph is suggestive of voters who are disappointed with their lot and wish to make an ill- informed and advised reactionary protest against a perceived elite who, incidentally, are not that remote anyway.

Your last paragraph is simply repetitive. Believe me, the last thing I can be accused of is being deferential. It is in order- in fact necessary- to quote arguments from both sides of the political spectrum so as to reach a balanced view. Deference is something once characterising the working classes which is now largely gone. Sadly, replacing it with few facts to decide a referendum issue is one reason for the mess we're in.

Edited September 24, 2018 by johnlittle

I guess that's what he's hoping for. In an interview at the TUC last week McDonnel said something which gave me the impression that he has his fingers crossed for an election after next March.

 

What neither McDonnell nor Corbyn don't seem to realise is when it does all come on top, the public will blame Labour and the Tories equally for the mess.

 

realistically, who else will they vote for though? Lib dems seem the only other option and many labour voters won't go over to them because of tuition fees. Greens have always been marginal, and other parties seem unlikely to get many votes (as usual) thus discouraging people to vote for them.