Euro Elections

[L00b 441]

9 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

How much relevance do UK representatives have in the EU parliament?

 

1) Very little - less than 10% of MEPs and unlikely to influence much. An irrelevance.

 

2) A lot - the UK's MEPs are very influential and relevant. The Brexit Party MEPs will cause havoc because of their relevance.

Putting aside your severe confusion as made clear in the above, I asked you that question about the 29 Brexit Party MEPs, which you were crowing about back then.

 

Not about the 73 MEPs representing UK circonscriptions, nor the 44 MEPs out of those which you're continually ignoring in your misplaced "Brexit Party über alles" haranguing.

 

Giz a shout when you stop shifting goalposts and pulling up strawmen, yeah?

[Robin-H 11]

6 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Why can't you assume that the Tory and Labour votes break down as they did in the referendum?

 

Endless polls have shown that apart from a gradual shift from Leave to Remain most people have pretty much the same view on Brexit as they did in 2016. Also those reduced Labour and Tory votes were not from hardcore Leave or Remainers who would not think twice about voting Lib Dem or for Farage, they were party loyalists who would vote as they always had. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that by and large they reflected Labour and Tory voting patterns in 2016. Certainly a lot more reasonable than trying to claim that all Labour and Tory voters were Leave supporters because of the official position of their parties. That is just nonsense and as stupid as trying to claim that support for Brexit went from 36% to 80% because 80% of people voted either Labour or Conservative in 2017.

 

And it does matter. Such a dramatic change in support for leaving the EU should mean that the narrative should now change from 'how do we do Brexit?' to 'why should we do Brexit?' and hopefully that narrative will be top of the agenda for the Labour Party.

If you’re saying that Tory and Labour votes break down as they did during the referendum you have to argue that this is true of Lib Dem votes, where I think 32% of Lib Dem voters wanted to leave the EU. 

 

I’m not arguing this is the case, as it’s clear that people have voted very differently this time. It’s why I wouldn’t also use a referendum 3 years ago to guess how different voters feel about the EU. 

 

Nobody knows that - including you. 

 

It would be stupid to claim that 100% of Tory and Labour voters wanted on leave to EU yes - which is why I have never done that. 

 

 

[I1L2T3 10]

7 hours ago, apelike said:

No it doesn't as we will soon have a different PM. His statement was conditional on the current PM Theresa May which required her to have the approval of "the house" as it was parliament that gave her the authority to proceed with A50, and as such it would not be conditional on any future PM. 

Of course it’s conditional on the next PM.

 

The next PM is hamstrung by law. They can’t get no deal through without parliamentary consent. They can’t approve the WA without parliamentary consent. The extension period does not allow for further negotiation.

 

The next PM is snookered

[L00b 441]

41 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Of course it’s conditional on the next PM.

 

The next PM is hamstrung by law. They can’t get no deal through without parliamentary consent. They can’t approve the WA without parliamentary consent. The extension period does not allow for further negotiation.

 

The next PM is snookered

The next PM could get no deal through, by political manoeuvring: unlike the signing of the WA, which is an active procedure and outcome, no-deal is a passive outcome requiring no procedure (because Parliament has no jurisdiction over the TEU and its effects).

 

Politically, we all know that there is a clear Parliamentary majority against no-deal. Legally however, it is still the automatic and irremediable consequence of not signing the WA  by the end of the extension (current, and as may be further extended). And that's regardless of whatever mitigation Bercow could inject into proceedings: if it's not resolved one way or the other (WA/withdraw Art.50) by end October, you will depend fully on the EU's goodwill. Again.

 

As with May before the next PM, it will all turn on political arithmetic in the UK. The EU27 aren't going to re-open the WA, so long as the UK still wants to Brexit with a deal: at the most, the next PM might get some more non-binding tinkering around the edges of the accompanying Political Declaration...if that next PM plays nice and fair, rather than out of the populo-nationalists' playbook.

 

And if the UK should Brexit without a deal, it'll be back to the negotiating table within weeks (-per ample amount of testimonies before Select Committees) and we all know what the first 3 items to discuss and agree upon before anything else, will be: the UK's membership tab, citizens' rights, and the RoI/NI border.

 

I.e. back to square one of 2 years ago, minus what little leverage the UK had to start with.

Edited May 29, 2019 by L00b

[I1L2T3 10]

40 minutes ago, L00b said:

The next PM could get no deal through, by political manoeuvring: unlike the signing of the WA, which is an active procedure and outcome, no-deal is a passive outcome requiring no procedure (because Parliament has no jurisdiction over the TEU and its effects).

 

Politically, we all know that there is a clear Parliamentary majority against no-deal. Legally however, it is still the automatic and irremediable consequence of not signing the WA  by the end of the extension (current, and as may be further extended). And that's regardless of whatever mitigation Bercow could inject into proceedings: if it's not resolved one way or the other (WA/withdraw Art.50) by end October, you will depend fully on the EU's goodwill. Again.

 

As with May before the next PM, it will all turn on political arithmetic in the UK. The EU27 aren't going to re-open the WA, so long as the UK still wants to Brexit with a deal: at the most, the next PM might get some more non-binding tinkering around the edges of the accompanying Political Declaration...if that next PM plays nice and fair, rather than out of the populo-nationalists' playbook.

 

And if the UK should Brexit without a deal, it'll be back to the negotiating table within weeks (-per ample amount of testimonies before Select Committees) and we all know what the first 3 items to discuss and agree upon before anything else, will be: the UK's membership tab, citizens' rights, and the RoI/NI border.

 

I.e. back to square one of 2 years ago, minus what little leverage the UK had to start with.

Any party that used political dirty tricks to force through long lasting economic damage would become unelectable for a generation or more.

 

It won’t happen. Note the shots across the bow from Hammond etc...

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

Any party that used political dirty tricks to force through long lasting economic damage would become unelectable for a generation or more.

That likelihood doesn't seem to have registered much, with the Tories and Labour so far.

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

It won’t happen. Note the shots across the bow from Hammond etc...

For your collective sakes, I hope you're right.

 

But those shots have as much political weight as peas, currently.

 

Bercow can ensure that Parliament is able to exercise its powers. He can't ensure that it will exercise its powers, and he can't give it powers that it doesn't have.

In particular, it's not clear that Parliament has any power either to compel a PM to seek an extension, or to compel a PM to withdraw the A50 notice. If it passes a resolution calling on the next PM to do one of those things, and the PM refuses, it can hold a vote of no confidence, but the outcome of that is not an exension or revocation: it is a general election, which takes weeks to play out, and the outcome of which is uncertain. Meanwhile the clock to October 31 doesn't stop running, Summer and other recesses or not.

Remember, Parliament has already approved a no-deal Brexit if it occurs simply because the A50 withdrawal period expires without a withdrawal agreement having been ratified. Parliament simply not liking that outcome, won't stop it from happening: Parliament must act, must act in time, and must act effectively.

 

Bercow can facilitate this, but he cannot bring it about himself.

Edited May 29, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat 10]

5 hours ago, Robin-H said:

If you’re saying that Tory and Labour votes break down as they did during the referendum you have to argue that this is true of Lib Dem votes, where I think 32% of Lib Dem voters wanted to leave the EU. 

That is true but if only 16% of Labour supporters intended to vote for UKIP or Farage in the €uro elections that figure would be a fraction of that in the Lib Dems who are the ‘premier’ Remain Party. And that tiny fraction would almost certainly vote Labour as an official Leave party as most Lib Dem’s couldn’t stomach voting for Farage or UKIP. I think that we can safely assume that the Lib Dem vote last Thursday was virtually all a Remain vote.

 

The 100% Leave support for Conservative voters comment was aimed at Wise Owl, who makes it the basis of his calculations as a method of showing a ‘faux majority’ for the Leave vote.

[El Cid 220]

55 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That is true but if only 16% of Labour supporters intended to vote for UKIP or Farage in the €uro elections that figure would be a fraction of that in the Lib Dems who are the ‘premier’ Remain Party.

 

In the referendum in 2016, it is calculated that 25% of Liberal Democrats voted to leave!

[Robin-H 11]

14 minutes ago, El Cid said:

In the referendum in 2016, it is calculated that 25% of Liberal Democrats voted to leave!

I believe it was more than that. I think the figure was 32%. 

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted

 

 

[Longcol 604]

10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I believe it was more than that. I think the figure was 32%. 

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted

 

 

Sounds like Tories who voted Lib Dem to try to oust Labour in seats where the Tories were well back in third.

[Robin-H 11]

23 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Sounds like Tories who voted Lib Dem to try to oust Labour in seats where the Tories were well back in third.

So do you think the 39% of Tory voters who voted remain are were actually Lib Dems? 

 

Or maybe, people within parties don't aways vote exactly the same way.. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Robin-H

[Longcol 604]

12 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So do you think the 39% of Tory voters who voted remain are were actually Lib Dems? 

 

No.

 

There are still a large number of Tory voters who belong more to the "one nation" tradition rather than  Rees-Mogg'ism or similar. That isn't reflected in Tory membership however.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Longcol