UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

{{ Well today- nothing happened!

This isn't quite as dull as it sounds. Labour and the government held talks, but as far as I can tell 'nothing happened' seems a fair summing up of it.

Why did nothing happen? Well May in one word. In two, May's bill. And in three, May's Withdrawal Bill.

You see its not exactly clear what it is the government is actually willing to alter or compromise on as May seems to be insisting her bill remain untouched.

Sturgeon two days ago, after her talks with May, complained that May did not seem interested in looking at alternatives so much as looking at ways to get people to support her bill, still.

That seems to have been confirmed today by Labour too-

'Meetings have been taking place between Tory and Labour politicians to find a proposal to put to the Commons before an emergency EU summit next week.
But Sir Keir said the government was not "countenancing any change" on the wording of the existing plan.

The government countered this accusation by saying-

"We have made serious proposals...(we are) prepared to pursue changes to the political declaration..deliver a deal that is acceptable to both sides"

To unpack that note he says the political declaration- thats the bit that comes after the withdrawal part, May's deal. In short they are saying we will discuss the second half of the Bill, but not the withdrawal deal that's been voted down three times in a row.
Given that I dont see how May hopes to change anything at all.Even if she gets Labour onside there will be Labour and Tory rebels who still vote against, the SNP almost certainly won't support it, and if May's deal is still heart and soul of the finished deal the DUP are not going to sign up to it, I fell if they were going to crumble they would have done so by now- so it appears to me that there is still no majority for it even if she gets Corbyn onside.

Labour have responded saying-

' the government's approach was "disappointing", and it would not consider any changes the "actual wording" of the political declaration. "Compromise requires change," he said.'

The BBC political editor sums it up as -

"The sense is that the government has only offered clarifications on what might be possible from the existing documents, rather than adjusting any of their actual proposals in the two documents."

But the actual end result of all this today can be summed up as nothing. Nothing has changed at all, not a smidgeon. }}

when is May going to get it? twisting and turning like a worm on a string is not going to cut it. Corbyn holds the power not her, and the sooner she climbs down and accepts it the better. but she wont, she is thick skinned stubborn and arrogant.

{{Are you sitting comfortably children? Then PM May will begin. }}

wow that was cringeworthy. its like she is talking to 6 year olds.

{{Weirdly went to show that vid to Nagual earlier and linked to wrong one! If same happens to anyone else try this one- should be May addressing the nation, like we are 4! }}

I can't help noticing she never really answers her thesis question, "What on Earth is Happening with Brexit????"

{{{

This is fun, He Who Moans, normally a film/tv critic treats Brexit as if its been a tv show }}

{{Well the Eu have granted an extension until October 31st- Halloween! Appropriate enough.
Seemed the majority were for a much longer delay but France under Macron held out for a shorter extension and got it.

Why does Macron want a shorter time? Well mainly thanks to Tory Brexiteers like Mogg, who since May said we would be asking for an extension, and making it likely we will have to participate in EU elections and send MEPs to the European Parliament in the meantime, Mogg said they will act as disruptors, going as far as to warn Macron that if the Eu tried to 'trap' the UK in a long extension they would seek to veto any and all EU business they could.
Macron who is keen on furthering the EU project and closer integration of nation states is not keen to give a departing UK the chance to kick the EU on the way out the door. Can't say as I blame him.
Nor do I get what Mogg and co who are threatening this action hope to really achieve- do they think the EU will be favourable to us in trade deals after we leave if we have spent the time deliberately spoiling all EU policy and business in the meantime? Where's the logic there then Mogg? You might be rich, posh, educated and have memorised the entirety of Hansard, but still a complete fuckwit without a clue somehow.

So what now? Well May and Labour keep talking and the aim, for May anyway is to get her deal through the door before the EU election happen, which doesn't seem hugely likely at the moment.
The DUP have been over talking to the Eu about the Unionist objections to the backstop and Labour, oh dear Labour.
Well Corbyn is exhausting all possibilities he says and -

'if no agreement was possible, he said: "We believe all options should remain on the table, including the option of a public vote."'

Note all options other than another vote come first, given another vote is supposed to be the main policy of his party on the EU you might think it would be a tad higher on the agenda, but no Corbyn clearly views it as a last resort position and is most likely only mentioning it all to placate all those in his own party calling for one. I would be very surprised if Corbyn has even brought it up in the discussions at all. }}

this sorry bollox will drag on for months, May wont budge an inch, she will put her deal to parliament 100 times without success, Corbyn will continue to dangle after an impossible soft and mushy brexit, the ERG will continue to plot and shout, the DUP will finally bugger off, and at the end of it there will be a general election where Dominic sociopath Raab becomes the next PM, and if you thought May was bad he will take malign policies to the next level. and that's if it all goes well. The only hope is replacing Corbyn with Starmer and going for a second ref, or just revoking the fuqer.

{{ Well council elections in England, Wales and NI yesterday and the results were, half as predicted and half surprising!

First the predictable bit, the Tories got a heavy kicking, lost control of some important councils and lost a failry astonishing 1,334 councillors- their heaviest defeat in 20 years.

Likewise Labour got punished too, though not as heavily, they lost some councils and overall were down 82 seats- but though its a lot less than the Tories, in some ways its worse as the Opposition of one of the most unpopular governments in recent times they are still losing seats instead of gaining them.
On this turn out for Labour even if Corbyn got the General election he has been clamouring for he'd be lucky to win it.

So that was the predictable bit.

But where the votes went was the interesting bit- the expectation was for UKIP, pro-Brexit and right wing paties to make substantial gains.
This has not happened.

No the biggest winners on the night were the Lib Dems who gained a huge 703 council seats, with the Greens and Independents grabbing the bulk of the rest.

And that's very interesting as the two parties who benefited most are the only two parties who are standing on a 2nd referendum on Brexit.

For the record, UKIP lost seats. }}

A graphical representation of Brexit votes vs local council votes before and after the recent one.

The obvious exchange of seats is clear to see, however most predictions had the Tories losing a maximum of 1200 seats, with labour gaining the lion's share of those. With the Lib/Dems gaining such a significant amount is certainly an indicator that those people are in favour of remaining, given the Lib/Dems stance on the EU. However the number of independents is significant too. Until we find out what they were elected for, it's just speculation.

I would say there is a good argument to say that the increase of independent seats along the southern coast is due to a perceived failing of UKip to be effective. I can see an argument to say because of that failing, some people have been elected on the basis of leaving.

The northern seats are much harder to analyse without more information regarding the councilors election campaign and why they were elected. Of course the same is true for all of them. Analytics aside, it's an interesting comparison.

its very interesting stuff, as you said the fact that Labour took a hammering notwithstanding the appalling tories, is a clear sign that people do not have faith in Corbyn and his pathetic dithering over a second referendum. they deserve all they get. Its very encouraging to see the Lib-Dems victorious. The other worrying thing is that prat Corbyn wittering on about the reasons Labour has done badly is because they haven't delivered brexit, no mate, its because people Don't want brexit. when will he admit defeat and get behind the 48%? Its never probably.

side note.. Draco Malfoy Williamson getting sacked for leaking. sly little toerag. whether what he did was in the public interest or not, I hope he is permanently booted out.

So for us outsiders, what will this mean going forward do you figure?
With the two main parties both diminished, will anybody have anything like enough votes to perform the basics of day-to-day governing, (and if not, what kind of bizarre alliances might we expect..... )

{{If you projected this to a general election result the Tories would still come out the largest, but only by a handful of seats. Making it unlikely they could form the government.
More likely would be, depending on the exact numbers, a Labour-Lib Dem coalition- or the strangest bedfellows, Labour SNP! Which would give Labour a working majority as a minority government. }}

David H wrote:So for us outsiders, what will this mean going forward do you figure?  
With the two main parties both diminished, will anybody have anything like enough votes to perform the basics of day-to-day governing, (and if not, what kind of bizarre alliances might we expect..... )

It doesn't really change the way the country is governed. But it is an indicator that the public are rapidly losing both faith and patience with both Labour and the Conservatives. What we will see over the next couple of weeks is a lot of PR crap as they try to make it look like whatever they are doing is really what people want. We may see a change of direction from one of the main parties, but that chances of that are slim.

If the Conservatives change, their party will fragment further. If Labour change the same will happen. Both parties are very much aware that losing any MPs would be catastrophic to them so will try to avoid it like the plague. This would not have happened if either party had stood up for what is good for the country, not pander to party politics. Both Labour and the Conservatives both trying to have their cake and eat it. Now all they have is crumbs.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{More likely would be, depending on the exact numbers, a Labour-Lib Dem coalition- or the strangest bedfellows, Labour SNP! Which would give Labour a working majority as a minority government. }}

Hmmm...that could definitely be interesting! On the surface it seems that this is one of the strengths of the parliamentary system over our system where the two parties are more hardwired in. It gives a bit more of a chance for minority voices to leverage their power and be heard, at least in theory. Or am i wrong?

{{ Sort of Dave.
On the surface third parties (and even sometimes fourth parties like UKIP) seem to have a better chance of getting a breakthrough than in the US system which is entirely dominated by two parties.
But I think its a quirk of history more than by any design as Parliament is elected on a first past the post system which neither favours smaller parties nor is fair in reflecting their share of the vote.
The devolved administrations in the UK all have a pr system of votes but Westminster constantly rejects that system.

And Parliament physically betrays a thinking that saw only two serious parties, as its layout is of government on one side and opposition facing them- anyone else is sort of just squeezed in the sides with the independents. }}

It's interesting that in the parliamentary system the executive is not fully separated from the legislative branch. But it has built-in checks by the vote of no confidence system with the ability for the executive to lose power at any moment.

{{ There are 3 levels of votes of no confidence to remove a PM. One of them can also remove a government by forcing a general election.

The big one therefore is a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government, which is made by the whole Commons. As the party in power most commonly has a majority for such a vote to pass it usually needs all the opposition parties united and at leat some of the governing parties own MP's.
Labour already tried this one and failed to get the necessary majority.
But they could try again, if enough Tory Mp's indicate they would vote with the opposition this time.

The next two remove only the PM , not the party and don't automatically trigger a general election because in our system you vote for the party not the leader of the party.
This one is voted on only by the party whose leader it is. In the case of the Tories they have a group in the party the 1922 Committee, which has its own subset of archaic rules, but basically if x amount of MP's go to them with signed letters saying they want rid of the PM then they can call a vote among Tory MP's of no confidence in the PM.
Mogg and his lot have already tried that one and it too failed.
The rules as they stand say the PM is then safe for a year, so in MAy's case, she can't be ousted this way again until December.

The last and final way is for the grass root constituency parties to have a vote of no confidence in the PM, if enough of them vote for it across the country it will be a big blow, but it is not binding, so the PM can just ignore it. But it would be politically difficult to remain head of party for which the backbone of councillors, activists and grass roots members have lost faith in you.

And that 3rd option for a vote of no confidence is coming up on the 15th! }}

{{ Looks like Corbyn might be getting run around by his own party. His refusal to negotiate for a 2nd public vote in the talks with the Tories seems to have forced the hand of those around him.

'A cross-party Brexit deal will not get through Parliament unless it is subject to a fresh public vote, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer says...without a new referendum, up to 150 Labour MPs would vote against any agreement made...deputy leader Tom Watson agreed that with so many of his fellow MPs wanting to give the public the final say, it would be very difficult to "enforce" any Brexit agreement without another vote.
"This will only work if two very strongly-held views are plugged together - Theresa May's deal and a confirmatory ballot,"- BBC

That's pretty much Corbyn's own cabinet and ministers telling him no 2nd public vote, we wont back you.
And I cant see May backing down on a 2nd public vote which she has adamantly opposed. }}

So basically no way forward and the clock still ticking, right?

This really is the old cliffhanger movie serial plotline playing out in real life, isn't it?

{{ During the English civil War, when Parliamentarians were fighting King Charles I Parliament sat from November 1640 to April 1653, its known as the "Long Parliament".
But in second place is the current "trying to sort Brexit out" Parliament, as it has now passed the days needed to be the longest siting since the Civil war. Coming in at 298 sitting days, or 2,657 hours and 56 minutes. Across 3 calendar years.

And so far they have decided absolutely nothing at all.   }}