Forum Topic

Tonight's vote - where do we go from here?

I know many people expected the Government would lose the vote - where to now?Another vote tomorrow and another the following day.The question is, how did we get into this mess and, more importantly, how can the UK recover from it?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2801d49 Comments

We got into the mess for 2 reasons 1) remainers refusing to accept democratic vote  2)  remainer MPs voting against Brexit constituency wishes.  However, that is all totally irrelevant now.  Indeed, where do we go now?  Whatever happens it will be chaos. Give or take 50% will be unhappy. What a mess.

Barbara Shillabeer ● 2801d

In answer to your questions...How did we get into this mess:  David CameronMore importantly, how can the UK recover from it:  Choose from one of the following.1) Annex Northern Ireland from GB2) Crash out of the EU with no deal and take an massive economic hit3) Cancel Brexit and upset some angry people who didn't know what they voted for (sorry guys, but it's true)Which one would you like?  It's bad, bad and bad. 

John Gorst ● 2801d

I agree Barbara, it is an unforgivable mess. There is so much going on about more Remain MPs than Leavers.One question though.  The referendum happened in June 2016 and there was a general election in 2017.Why did people vote for MPs they that did not support Leave?Theresa May comes to mind.  I am puzzled.It seems to me that the question why? seems to be popping up much too often!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2801d

Well, John, not much of a consolation reply I am afraid.What is the best for GB?Regardless as to how you voted, what is the best route for GB vs the priorities of the different parties?The latter, I think, is the key to the question.People voted Leave for a myriad of reasons, some mentioned often are "being governed by Brussels", "we let the Commonwealth countries down in 1975", among many others - forget the busToday, we are a country in disarray, so very painful and dare I say, not British?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2801d

Well:1) it's debatable if the referendum was democratic given the action taken by the Electoral Commission against the leave campaign and action taken by the ICO against Cambridge Analytica and Aaron Banks's organisations.2) it wasn't just Remain MPs voting against the deal - hard Brexiters like the ERG and DUP voted it down because Brexit  wasn't defined before invoking A50.Where to we go: reject, no deal to avoid total chaos, postpone A50 and have another referendum?

Michael Ixer ● 2801d

“Why did people vote for MPs they that did not support Leave?Theresa May comes to mind.  I am puzzled.”I think they all said that they would respect the result.  They changed their minds and those who want to (the erg and co) are now called hardliners while they actually want to uphold the ref result.More broadly than that people largely have a choice between labour and conservative, both of which have let us down in this regard.I would tend to say we move to delay and another referendum, but whatever it is could we please not have Theresa May as PM - she has been a major reason for this in negotiating for and offering Brino, and surely whatever happens should leave now (he says more in exasperation than expectation)

Mike Warman ● 2800d

The farce gets worse - sorry this first article is behind a paywall but other papers are reporting it too https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-import-tariffs-to-be-slashed-under-no-deal-brexit-3lnkds36jhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/brexit-tariffs-on-87-of-uk-imports-cut-to-zero-in-temporary-no-deal-planhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/13/brexit-government-reveals-87-uk-imports-would-face-no-tariffs/

Lucille Grant ● 2800d

Stand to be corrected but if the crooks vote out no deal today but then tomorrow vote not to extend article 50 do we leave with no deal anyway? And is this what Lord snooty is banking on ? Comrade Cornyn looking for a general election by any means .Seems they all have their own angle but pretend it's for our good.

Andy Pike ● 2800d

Ivonne originally asked (1) How we got in this mess and (2) How we get out of it.The first question is easily answered, as someone else has already: David Cameron and his foolish attempt to square the Brexit wing of the Conservatives. But even worse was his cowardly scuttling off to his £15,000 shed, leaving the field open to someone with flair, imagination, strategic sense and the ability to communicate. That was what was needed, but what we ended up with was Theresa May. (It could, of course, have been worse: we might have had poor, clueless Andrea "I can do the job because I'm a mum" Leadsom or greedy, self-obsessed Boris "I can do the job because (i.e., despite the fact that) I'm Boris Johnson" Johnson). The second is less easily answered, but I think the only way out of the present impasse is to say that Parliament is deadlocked (not a criticism: they're merely reflecting the country as a whole) and since this whole farce was precipitated by a referendum vote, the only realistic way out is a second referendum. Of course there are problems with that, not least what should the question(s) be, the dangers of yet more bitterness and the counterintuitive argument that a further vote would be undemocratic (really!) but honestly, what other solution is there? And I can't see what the point of a general election would be: both main parties are completely split, and the likelihood is that we'd end up with another paralysed parliament with the awful DUP headbangers having a totally disproportion influence.Incidentally, I think Mike Warman (08:20 today) is far too kind to the Brextremist ERG etc in saying that they " are now called hardliners while they actually want to uphold the ref result." That may be true of some, but the majority are clearly concerned only to use Brexit to move to a low tax, zero regulated economy that would be a disaster.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

As the MPs themselves change their minds (I can't keep up with who has changed from Leave to Remain and vice versa) so should the electorate be allowed to vote again. As Richard rightly points out what should the questions be from these?1) May's Deal (even if already voted down by  HoC)2) No Deal 3) Rescind article 50 and RemainMeanwhile an extension on article 50 after  29 March will only be agreed by the EU if the UK illustrates what it will do during this extension. Continue to faff around with endless debates (I've been watching them live, I know, I need to get myself a life) will not cut it with Brussels, rightly so.

Lucille Grant ● 2800d

On the point of a second referendum i'm slowly coming round to the view it might be the only way out.but my concerns are;1) will the shower of MPs respect it should it return with the same result as the 1st?or will that just put us back to square 1.2) if for instance Remain were to get a majority but on a reduced turn out ie say 15m v 14 m would we go on aggregate scores , aggregate percentages or would a lower number beat the higher number of the 1st poll ?my concern is that we end up with calls for the best of 3 as this second poll is inconclusive.It is fraught with difficulties that could cause even more division.3) A general Election ? Now how would leave voters (poll 1  ) react to their sitting MPs who have frustrated this process ?I understand the point that they are not delegates and they must work for the good of all . Is that what they were doing when they were fiddling their expenses (spending the money in their constituencies for the benefit of the local economy), or when avoiding traffic laws by blaming someone else so they could continue to serve their constituents (and pick up their £70k + salaries and employ family members )

Andy Pike ● 2800d

Rather harsh (to put it politely) to tar all MPs with the same brush, by citing the relatively few who fiddled their expenses and the one MP who avoided traffic laws by blaming someone else so they could continue to serve their constituents (and pick up their £70k + salaries and employ family members).But on your earlier questions, I think that a second vote would trump (or ratify) the first, because we now know so much more about what leaving would entail and the electorate will have changed significantly. Hopefully also the blatant lies and cheating that went on in the first referendum will be controlled better next time. So in conclusion, I think a second referendum would be accepted in advance, whichever way it was to go.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

It looks as though no deal will be decisively rejected today, and presumably an extension will be voted for tomorrow (agree if it isn't that the result would be completely indeterminate). But the bigger question about a delay (and remember, that supreme wordsmith Theresa May has already helpfully pronounced that "A delay is a delay") is what it would actually be for. I don't think the EU would accept a short (2/3 month) delay as it would only result in a few more turns on the endless Brexit carousel but would want not just a longer (one year? To the end of 2020?) but a convincing argument on what the delay would actually be for (A general election? A second referendum?) and that it would likely produce a result that could be dealt with.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

And now a free vote on the Malthouse Amendment tonight:A reminder from the Guardian what this is https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/04/bonkers-what-the-eu-thinks-of-the-malthouse-compromiseOur MPs are no longer voting as their constituents voted for in 2016 - but hopefully they are voting for the good of the whole country? Who knows.

Lucille Grant ● 2800d

Crazy and pointless: they might as well offer a free vote on whether or not we can have our cake and eat it. Even if it passed in the Westminster Laughing Academy it would be rejected by the EU.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

yeh maybe harsh but there were more then a few who fiddled and more than one who have gone to jail in recent years for traffic offences when getting another family member to take the blame.but that is a side issue i take the point on the second ref trumping the first, although not convinced the lies on either side influenced folk that much. I think, most people went into it with a clear intention despite the facts and lies on both sides. I would expect a similar approach this time but with a significantly reduced turn out (and not just because most of the dead over the last 3 years voted out ??) as who would trust this lot to listen anyway unless of course  the end result is the one they want.

Andy Pike ● 2800d

Apologies for the absurdly long sentence at the end of that: I challenge anyone to read it all aloud without drawing breath.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

“So in conclusion, I think a second referendum would be accepted in advance, whichever way it was to go.”Like we were told the first one would be you mean??I wouldn’t mind one myself just to put to bed one way or another but as Andy says I’m not sure it would - what would be the question for a start?  Remain v “wto” I would vote wto, remain v May’s brino/ vassalage I would go remain.  The country appears stuck, we just need someone with a leadership ability to get people behind whatever they want to do.Rgarding your earlier comment here “Incidentally, I think Mike Warman (08:20 today) is far too kind to the Brextremist ERG etc in saying that they " are now called hardliners while they actually want to uphold the ref result." That may be true of some, but the majority are clearly concerned only to use Brexit to move to a low tax, zero regulated economy that would be a disaster.”I’m sure most do want lower regulation. Maybe some are more extreme.  Broadly though they want the U.K. to become a self governing country with laws implemented by its elected representatives rather than imposed by  the bureaucracy loving Brussels.  If a parliament were elected that wanted to reduce regulation then they would be able to, if you want to increase it then you can vote for a party who would increase.  Giving people the option in a democracy seems somehow more democratic than not?Article from the Torygraph apt on that one.  Behind a paywall but querying why Europe has no internet/ tech giants the quote t the start being “America innovates, China duplicates, Europe regulates”https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/13/world-wide-web-30-costs-britain-must-avoid-europes-miserable/I think that could go some way to explain why some might like a lighter touch in some areas.Finally suggesting someone like Andrea Jenkins is passionate anpbout removing all regulations?  Not entirely sure I see that, I do see her as passionate about enacting a true Brexit in line with the wishes of her constituents.

Mike Warman ● 2800d

So Richard you agree that the only way to truest leave is with no deal?The Eu tying us into a backstop with no way out hardly the action of a club I want to be a member of

Mike Warman ● 2800d

I know I'm repeating myself here, but...The best deal is the one we have today, for only 0.7% of our taxes.  Leaving the EU is not in the national interest, so our MPs should not allow it.  Leaving with no deal would be illegal under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.  Politicians and very rich people lied to get the result they wanted.  How would leaving the EU benefit you personally?  It wouldn't.  Stop Brexit.https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/what-no-deal-brexit-ways-15964011Section 3:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary/how-public-spending-was-calculated-in-your-tax-summary

Clare Noeken ● 2800d

"So Richard you agree that the only way to truest leave is with no deal?"Nice try, Mike, but obviously not. And I wouldn't support leaving under any of the likely circumstances.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

"I know I'm repeating myself here, but..."S'okay, we're used to it ... 💤

Sue Hammond ● 2800d

Very helpful and constructive there Sue.  Nice one.  Why don't you tell us, from a Leave perspective, what you think should happen next?

John Gorst ● 2800d

Perhaps a solution would be to make a second referendum legally binding? The first one wasn't.

Matt Palmer ● 2800d

we should do what should have been done 2.5 years ago. Make a clean-break Plan A, work out what needs to be done, ie proper planning and preparation, and delay leaving until such time as we have all our ducks in a row. A trade deal can then be negotiated without all the fear mongering by remain.

Adam Tripp ● 2800d

Exactly Matt. This seems to have been lost in all the drama.

Lucille Grant ● 2800d

So we should ask the EU for an extension with a view to leaving with no deal?  Would the EU countries would grant us that extension?Do you think that with "proper planning and preparation" it would not be economically damaging to the country?It sounds quite idealistic.  I'm not trying to be facetious, but i just can't see it working like that or how it would benefit us.

John Gorst ● 2800d

Just checking Richard 😀😀

Mike Warman ● 2800d

the EU has said it will only consider an extension if it's clear "what the UK wants". With the full weight of government and the civil service et al behind planning and preparing for a clean break we could leave with minimal disruption and also give the EU time for similar planning without having a moving target. Brexit is NOT the problem, this governments appalling negotiating skills and lack of expertise is imho the problem, Brexit was (and hopefully still is) an opportunity to do things differently whilst remaining rock solid friends with Europe and an important trading partner to the EU. This government has made a right cock-up of the whole thing :(

Adam Tripp ● 2800d

I agree Adam, I don’t think we will though.John as to an extension to allow extra prep I think they wouldn’t clearly, after all our remain prime minister and chancellor have been blocking no deal preparations ever since they invoked article 50 without a plan.I’m assuming here Adam means we should leave on the 29th and address issues at the time.  I do think though that a fair amount of planning has been done they just don’t want to admit it.

Mike Warman ● 2800d

Certainly the economic aspect of Brexit is important: why abandon our nearest trading partners for such economic heavyweights as, er, the Faroe Islands? After all, on the government's own forecasts, leaving the EU under *any* circumstances will leave us worse off (and, sadly, the areas that most strongly voted for Brexit will be the worst hit).But for me, although that's important, the argument that strikes home most strongly is the cultural one: we are European and our whole history has been bound up with involvement (often disagreeable, I would concede) with the continent. Our arts, science and medical sectors are irretrievably bound up with Europe, and it's insane to try to float off into some no mans land or, worse, an illusory Empire 2.0 (and we haven't heard much about "Global Britain" lately, have we? I wonder what happened to that particular fantasy…). Even our language is half Latin/French, for heaven's sake!All of which, of course, is beside the argument that the EEC/EU has helped restore the continent after the 20th century wars and ensured that we stayed at peace (and those who gloatingly refer to the possibility that the EU might collapse should be very careful what they wish for).And we're supposed to throw all this away for what, exactly? I wish someone would try to explain what they think the advantages of leaving are - and by that I don't mean half-cooked slogans like "take back control" (From what, for what purpose?), "restoring sovereignty" (which we had never lost in the first place) or, particularly fatuously, "escaping from the EU dictatorship" (where are the EU political prisoners, torture cells and concentration camps? The censorship of newspapers, magazines and books? The EU secret police?). But somehow I don't expect a coherent response: as Simon Schama said in his FT article, all the pleasure for the leavers was in the leaving, none of it in where we'd end up, because - and I can't emphasise this strongly enough - they really hadn't a clue. And they still haven't. If it wasn't so damned tragic, it would be laughable.

Richard Carter ● 2800d

They invoked article 50 without having a plan.  There was no plan, only a concept.  Informed consent was not given.https://www.stopbrexitmisconduct.org.uk/

Clare Noeken ● 2800d

Hi Clare, I am interested to know what you would have done to honour the result of the referendum? Actually, same question to all the hardcore remainers on this forum, forget for a moment where we are, how should the government have honoured the result?

Adam Tripp ● 2800d

A point that gets lost in the rhetoric about the backstop:  it is there as an insurance against ending up with a hard border in NI. It was structured to meet UK requirements and it is there to make sure the Good Friday Agreement remains in place. I find it deeply disappointing that Brussels is apparently trying harder to support the GFA - and thus peace in NI - than Westminster. The backstop is not intended by either party to hold the other to anything more than keeping the repeated promises they have made to maintaining an open border. Arch Brexiteers don’t like it because of the potential to keep the UK stuck in a customs union they want to leave, but it has proved beyond the greatest minds to resolve the problem of how you keep an open border between two states with different tariff and regulatory regimes.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2800d

Personally, I probably wouldn't have honored it.  I appreciate that would probably mean my political downfall.I would have done what I thought was in the best interests of the country, not what the popularist view is. Part of the governments job is to protect the people from themselves.I would have tried to keep the country in the EU and attempt to invoke change from within, i.e. try to fix the problems with the EU.  Economically (which I believe to be the most important consideration in this) it would be a lot cheaper to appoint clean-up squads to follow the riots and replace shop windows when the Angry Mob comes to town and smashes things up in protest.I would have made an unpopular PM.  :-(There should never have been a referendum in the first place.

John Gorst ● 2800d

thank you John, I think your honesty would have been a refreshing change in parliament!People have argued that the referendum was flawed in many ways, for me, a referendum "win" should be one where 50% of those eligible to vote, vote for the change, not 50% of those who actually vote, this would give an unarguable mandate for change.

Adam Tripp ● 2800d

Thank you Richard.My apologies but my question "How did we get in this mess?" was incorrectly worded.  I did not mean to go back to the 2016 referendum.  I meant to say voting again for a Withdrawal Agreement that had been rejected previously.  I know, there was the question of the backstop, but there are other areas that are problematic too.  The so-called legally binding backstop was rejected last night.  This is a mess and a half some three weeks away from 29 March.Where do we go from here?  I am almost tempted to say we should start all over again, from scratch. I know there will be protestations about this suggestion, but I believe a clean slate is certainly needed.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2800d

Agreed. The next step has to be agreement on how the land border in Ireland will be managed without jeopardising the GFA.

Michael Ixer ● 2800d

The Maybots NASTY party got us into this mess - that and the lies uttered by so many of their self-serving greedies - how do we get out if it: simple - we have another 'confirmation' referendum but with this difference, the lies are now exposed.

Clifford Cowell ● 2800d

A little something for Richard to refute from Labour leave...https://globalbritain.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/GBLL-paper-30-Truths-Final-05.01.19.pdfLooks reasonable in the main - 30 reasons why there won’t be negative impacts from a wto Brexit.  Such a shame our politicians can’t accept this due to their own ideologies, or at least engage with this enough to help us understand why they see so many problems....

Mike Warman ● 2800d

Well , I haven't had time to read it properly, but it doesn't start very promisingly: the very first point is that "We will keep upwards of £39 billion."And how will we do that? By reneging on our already agreed obligation to pay what we've agreed to pay. That won't do much for our reputation as a reliable trading partner, will it? I hope the rest of this stuff is rather more solidly based ...

Richard Carter ● 2800d

It is indeed.And re exit payments from what I’ve heard I think that they would pay around half that in the event of no deal (to cover pension liabilities etc), but the 39bn figure comes from the withdrawal agreement which if not signed is not committed.  Obviously a chunk would be paid I assume to facilitate a less bumpy exit.I thought I’d try something from the labour side for you - I don’t get the impression that you’re a fan of the tories.

Mike Warman ● 2800d

The people saying how wonderful WTO would be are the same people who said the Brexit negotiations would be the easiest in history.  But anyway:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1082174094450311168.htmlPeter Lilley has a holiday home in France.  Shame he'll only be able to use it for 90 days of every 180 if we do leave the EU.

Clare Noeken ● 2800d

A no-deal Brexit with WTO rules would have been easy if we had not had a Remainer Prime Minister who has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for democracy. Parliament has failed.  Perhaps the Queen should step in....We have close links with a booming Commonwealth and the rest of the world speaks and trades largely in our language, and want our goods.  Our fisherman would also be free of pulse fishing, which has decimated our waters, which the EU has finally agreed to phase out by 2021.We need to exit fast, before the EU parliament shuts down in April for elections at the end of May, where apparently our seats have been reallocated amongst the other 27 countries.

Chantal Blake-Milton ● 2800d

Nobody voted for No Deal.Nobody voted for food and medicine shortages.Nobody voted to make diabetics worry about whether they’d have insulin.Nobody voted for businesses collapsing.Nobody voted for a return to the Troubles in N Ireland.Vote Leave promised we’d have a deal

Lucille Grant ● 2800d

"the easiest deal in history' as i recall...

Matt Palmer ● 2800d

The easiest in human history , according to Air Miles Liam....

Richard Carter ● 2800d

Absolutely agree Chantal.  From the beginning with Blair allowing unfettered immigration to the UK without reality checking what it would do, to the end of this utter fiasco, the sooner we can leave the better.  It can only get worse and the EU are not going to do anything to help or give a better deal, why should they?  They're so worried that this is the thin edge of the wedge.  Serves them right for being so greedy.

Bunny Payne ● 2800d

Sue Hammond: Yes, but you're wrong every time.

Alexander MacLeod ● 2800d