chiefly those banks and the financial sector that a lot on the left want taxed into oblivion anyway

Aha, aha, ha ha, nice try but this cosmic clusterfuck is entirely of the right's making.

GrahamH wrote:The referendum result tells us very little. It's a mandate, but for what? It merely asked if we should leave the EU or remain in the EU. That's it. Whatever bollox Gove or Johnson or Farage came out with there is no mandate for any of it. The ballot tells us nothing about attitudes to those issues. They had no authority to make pledges, no power to and no plans to deliver anything, and it's now plain they didn't intend anything they said to be taken as a pledge.

It Is impossible to give the people what they want because they haven't been asked what they want, and the one thing they did ask for doesn't give them what we suspect they may want.

Do MPs vote to deliver that one thing in whatever farcical form it can be delivered (as close to status quo as possible), and to hell with people's expectations?

The PM and MPs who approved the question, and the Electoral Commission who assessed the question seem to have given no thought to whether the question gives sufficient measure of voters' wishes that could mandate any actions to deliver those wishes.

None of the key issues of the Leave campaign automatically follow from leaving the EU. Is that a basis for a second referendum to ask the people what they actually want government to DO?

Following the appointment of a new leader, can the new PM be certain of parliamentary support with such small majority and would he/she likely be satisfied that there is valid authority and mandate (being an un-elected PM) to lead the country through this unusual period of instability? It may be they would have to seek consensus based on the new reality, on the issues you highlight, through a GE.

With UKIP heads up and Labour in apparent disarray, the Torys would be reasonably sure of re-election with a sound mandate.

Byron wrote:"Taking this" has been discussed plenty: unless the government wants to see economic meltdown and millions of citizens enraged at losing the right to live and work in Europe, it's the Norway option now advocated by Johnson. This will swiftly lead to millions of Leave voters seething at the betrayal of what they thought they were voting for, and greatly reduce British influence over EU laws it must still follow.

Given that, undoing this debacle is by far the preferable option.

What is preferable (this is; what action will do the most good/least harm here) and what is politically expedient are not necessarily equivalent and/or compatible. I regret that this may come over as rather Jonnoesque but left to their own devises politicians invariably tend to serve their own personal political interests first. This, along with the usual saving face imperative of most humans, is why they are so woolly on details at election time (or any time) and so keen to present the plausible deniability of an utterance (I call it 'backtrackability') as a political virtue, and perhaps why they expend so much energy in talking about the deficiencies of their opponents position while studiously placing less emphasis on the merits of their own. Nowadays the best reason offered by party A to vote for party A is that they are not party B - perhaps it was always so.

In an inter-connected globalised economy ever greater political and national alignment seems inevitable, and the only way to 'Take Back Control', which implies having most if not everything on 'our' own terms--at least in the way the Leave campaigns presented it--is to lock the doors and draw the curtains like North Korea. Even then, North Korea cannot exist as a discrete political/national entity. Since the second World War we've come to understand that political power and national sovereignty are not best expressed as the kind of absolute commodity embodied in various kinds of monarachism; that negotiating and sharing/pooling resource is better all round than fighting for exclusive control and ownership of them, and; that by this trade flourishes, economies stabilise and grow, and that nations and their people become more trusting in recognition that they are fundamentally more similar than they are diverse. Demonising 'the other', which I feel has been a feature of the recent Leave campaign, is perhaps the most obvious reflection of an innate desire to render the future in the image of the past; to take a few steps backwards to a time when 'control' meant might, unquestioned moral authority, and a god-given right of course, and were all a political establishment needed to justify its own memetic imperatives.

One thing which has risen to the surface during the referendum is, to some extent, imo, a false sense of superiority bound to an assumed merit in the idea of a British Exceptionalism: a vague notion of identity which has now been given a shape and form under BREXIT. Even if we don't know who we are at least we can say, "We are not Europe!" We are better than the European Union it seems, and now we are free to cast our gaze across the Atlantic to the soft- and not-so-soft-Libertarianism of the US for our models of a past-as-future independent existence. I think this is a misguided; a mistake that ignores overwhelming similarities in favour of relatively slight differences; it is a limited and limiting view.

Yet, considering that we find ourselves in our current situation not as the result of a popular groundswell but as the result of political manoeuvrings in the ongoing conflict between Liberal and Libertarian tendencies in the Conservative party, the appeal of a British Exceptionalism (not to mention the appeal of self-generating myths regarding the exceptional nature and quality of the party itself) is not surprising among a political institution whose movers-and-shakers have always mined their great cultural and financial capital from the fertile loam of their own self-declared superiority: an opinion about themselves which is only emboldened by the accompanying sense of righteous privilege and merit which is afforded by inherited wealth and admission to the elite training camps of Eton, Winchester, Westminster and Harrow.

"You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats are always anarchists."

-- G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday, 1908

fisherman wrote:

GrahamH wrote:The referendum result tells us very little. It's a mandate, but for what? It merely asked if we should leave the EU or remain in the EU. That's it. Whatever bollox Gove or Johnson or Farage came out with there is no mandate for any of it. The ballot tells us nothing about attitudes to those issues. They had no authority to make pledges, no power to and no plans to deliver anything, and it's now plain they didn't intend anything they said to be taken as a pledge.

It Is impossible to give the people what they want because they haven't been asked what they want, and the one thing they did ask for doesn't give them what we suspect they may want.

Do MPs vote to deliver that one thing in whatever farcical form it can be delivered (as close to status quo as possible), and to hell with people's expectations?

The PM and MPs who approved the question, and the Electoral Commission who assessed the question seem to have given no thought to whether the question gives sufficient measure of voters' wishes that could mandate any actions to deliver those wishes.

None of the key issues of the Leave campaign automatically follow from leaving the EU. Is that a basis for a second referendum to ask the people what they actually want government to DO?

Following the appointment of a new leader, can the new PM be certain of parliamentary support with such small majority and would he/she likely be satisfied that there is valid authority and mandate (being an un-elected PM) to lead the country through this unusual period of instability? It may be they would have to seek consensus based on the new reality, on the issues you highlight, through a GE.

With UKIP heads up and Labour in apparent disarray, the Torys would be reasonably sure of re-election with a sound mandate.

That's what scares them most. The next pm will be hated forever by half the country if he/she does not trigger article 50 and by the other half if they do. Then they will be hated by half the country if they leave the single market and by the other half if they don't end immigration.

The best argument against calling an early GE is that nobody can be sure they won't win it.

I'm inclined to think a new General Election would be unhelpful. We don't have a presidential system, even if some people seem to expect it. The Prime Minister is the party leader able to command a majority in the House of Commons. He/she doesn't need a personal mandate in addition to this.

With the implosion of the Labour party it's hard to see how the result would be in doubt or how we'd be better off because of the exercise - just even more fed up of listening to politicians than we already are.

logical bob wrote:I'm inclined to think a new General Election would be unhelpful. We don't have a presidential system, even if some people seem to expect it. The Prime Minister is the party leader able to command a majority in the House of Commons. He/she doesn't need a personal mandate in addition to this.

With the implosion of the Labour party it's hard to see how the result would be in doubt or how we'd be better off because of the exercise - just even more fed up of listening to politicians than we already are.

For PM I tend to agree, but as a means to get a mandate for a specific exit plan it seems a good idea. The public have not given a view on a Brexit manifesto.

logical bob wrote:I'm inclined to think a new General Election would be unhelpful. We don't have a presidential system, even if some people seem to expect it. The Prime Minister is the party leader able to command a majority in the House of Commons. He/she doesn't need a personal mandate in addition to this.

With the implosion of the Labour party it's hard to see how the result would be in doubt or how we'd be better off because of the exercise - just even more fed up of listening to politicians than we already are.

It would be helpful as you can't vote through the various law changes in parliament with a majority of 12, with both parties split down the middle.

Can you imagine that of the 100's of laws that will need to be changed the government would have to worry whether it would get passed or not. It would take for ever (and that's not a good way of avoiding leaving the EU)

You can get away with a majority of 12 if you have a tightly controlled disciplined party and you aren't doing anything controversial which is another world to what we have now

chairman bill wrote:Let's re-run the referendum, with the following rules; any politician caught lying or making promises they are in no position to deliver on, is handed over to Tyson Fury, with "I'm ghey" tattooed on their forehead.

Or simply sacked and banned from so much as emptying the bins in a political office for life.

Can't see a new GE, I'm still not sure what benefit there would be for the Tories in calling for a vote on it.

In other amusing news

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh

No10 spkswoman on #indyref2 "The last thing Scotland needs now is a divisive referendum". Looked offended when Lobby hacks laughed out loud

ronmcd wrote:Can't see a new GE, I'm still not sure what benefit there would be for the Tories in calling for a vote on it.

In other amusing news

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh

No10 spkswoman on #indyref2 "The last thing Scotland needs now is a divisive referendum". Looked offended when Lobby hacks laughed out loud

Are the Tories united enough to command a vote in parliament to trigger article 50? Have me doubts.

...as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of Article 50 itself.

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

ETA: May have been a hasty posting, I've quoted a proposed legal argument rather than a law as such.

mrjonno wrote:

logical bob wrote:I'm inclined to think a new General Election would be unhelpful. We don't have a presidential system, even if some people seem to expect it. The Prime Minister is the party leader able to command a majority in the House of Commons. He/she doesn't need a personal mandate in addition to this.

With the implosion of the Labour party it's hard to see how the result would be in doubt or how we'd be better off because of the exercise - just even more fed up of listening to politicians than we already are.

It would be helpful as you can't vote through the various law changes in parliament with a majority of 12, with both parties split down the middle.

Can you imagine that of the 100's of laws that will need to be changed the government would have to worry whether it would get passed or not. It would take for ever (and that's not a good way of avoiding leaving the EU)

You can get away with a majority of 12 if you have a tightly controlled disciplined party and you aren't doing anything controversial which is another world to what we have now

A general election wouldn't solve that problem anyway (you aren't going to see hundreds of MPs who favoured remain simply give up their seat, job and political career) so the point is entirely moot, even if it's correct that the rift would cause MPs to vote down legislation.

ronmcd wrote:Can't see a new GE, I'm still not sure what benefit there would be for the Tories in calling for a vote on it.

In other amusing news

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh

No10 spkswoman on #indyref2 "The last thing Scotland needs now is a divisive referendum". Looked offended when Lobby hacks laughed out loud

The benefit would be to have a mandate for a Brexit plan, rather than working it out for themselves and then getting slated for failing to deliver what the people wanted. Such a mandate could also strengthen their hand in EU negotiations.

There are also serious downsides for them.

If (a big IF) they could get a bigger majority it would make completing Brexit easier.

GrahamH wrote:The benefit would be to have a mandate for a Brexit plan, rather than working it out for themselves and then getting slated for failing to deliver what the people wanted. Such a mandate could also strengthen their hand in EU negotiations.

So a new Tory leader comes along and says "OK everyone, this is my Brexit plan." Are lifelong Conservatives who don't like it going to vote Labour? Are supporters of other parties who think it's the best response to a difficult situation going to vote Conservative? Are you going to interpret the boost to the Tory vote caused by the Labour party's determination to eat itself as a mandate for the Brexit plan?

General elections are about who governs. They're not referenda on particular issues.

The tricky part of Brexit plan is that its not unilateral declaration but rather consensus between the UK and the EU. In this sense, what can anyone promise to deliver except general statements?

Can't believe I've so far missed the opportunity to post my most used gif. Sums up the current situation completely.

GrahamH wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

zoon wrote:
Probably Thommo and GrahamH are right and leave is leave I still think the possibility of not leaving is worth staying with when its so clear that a high proportion of leave voters were wrong about what they were voting for. Thommo says rightly that the question on the ballot paper was clear it is equally clear that millions of people read it as meaning significantly less immigration

The people of this country had four months and three days to decide whether or not we should remain in the EU. This is more than enough time for a single issue. So we cannot have another referendum just because some are having second thoughts as that would be a complete travesty of democracy. So for better or for worse the decision has to stand. Sometimes though you have to wonder. Since the second most googled question after the referendum was what is the EU ? which could mean that a significant proportion of the population actually voted for or against something they knew absolutely nothing about. Seriously

I don't think the ballot question was clear at all. OK, it was clear as "In" or "Out", but what does "Out" look like? What does "In really mean? I don't think either campaign did a good job of explaining what people were actually voting for. The reality is complex. It was hard work to find out the options might mean.

The reality wasn't so complex four months would have been insufficient to understand the issue; people are gaining much more understanding now in a few days than they were in months before.

The campaigns did do a poor job of explaining, but that's largely because the people running them had major reasons to obfuscate. And British campaign laws severely limit expression of independent opinions in these situations.

ED209 wrote:

You know what I mean 'arry?

From Wiki:

Bruno grew up with five siblings in Hammersmith, West London. His mother was Jamaican and his father was Dominican.

ronmcd wrote:Can't believe I've so far missed the opportunity to post my most used gif. Sums up the current situation completely.

Wouldn't it be great if Alan Partridge became the new leader of the Tories. Him or Al Murray.

tuco wrote:The tricky part of Brexit plan is that its not unilateral declaration but rather consensus between the UK and the EU. In this sense, what can anyone promise to deliver except general statements?

Sure, it's all fucked up and a GE is not a good vehicle, but without GE with Brexit plan in the manifesto, or a second referendum on such a plan, what mandate does any PM have to act, beyond delivering notice under Article 50?

In or out of the EEA? No mandate.
Free movement? No mandate.
Paying money to the EU? No mandate.

Surely we have to either start with a plan that has a mandate, or just press the button, see what we can get, and present that deal to the people. Do you think it would be adequate to just present the negotiated deal to a Europhile Parliament?

Big changes that are not tested by referendum are usually introduced through GE manifestos, which isn't a great thing.