It's amazing how geography changes perspective. I am in Brussels this morning to attend the final conference of the EU funded Horizon 2020 academic research programme I have been engaged in over the last three years. There is a sense of relief at being even a little distant from the UK and all the failings so apparent in its political systems at present. Never has the apparent order of the EU seemed so attractive.
But all such perceptions are no more than that: they do not change reality. That reality is that the UK remains as much in a mess as it has been since David Cameron called a referendum in Europe. It continues to be hopelessly divided with almost no obvious way out of that mess.
Will an election really resolve matters? Some in the Tories clearly think so. Those who believe Corbyn walks in water during election campaigns clearly think likewise. Their optimism is misplaced in both cases, I think.
I can read opinion polls. Some Tories are clearly believing them. So did Theresa May. She got it wrong. And this time the difference is not May's inadequacies, obvious as it became apparent that they were, but Johnson's failure to deliver Brexit. When do or die by 31 October was the only basis for his appeal and it has not happened, the shine becomes very tarnished. The honeymoon is over. Even the winning of one parliamentary vote will not be enough. I predict Farage will inflict more damage on the Tories than any current poll suggests. In the Brexit marginals Johnson's appeal has gone, I suspect. He too has failed. And that's to Labour's overall advantage, probably.
As for Labour, still as it is without a clear Brexit strategy (and please don't tell me it has one, because it's glaringly obvious that it has not got one the public will understand), the chances of a win are small. You simply cannot fight an election on the biggest issue of the day saying 'we'll tell you what we think in due course'. That may work in a Constituency Labour Party meeting, but with the public it's a non-starter. They expect politicians to know what they think. The result is that Labour will hemorrhage seats to the LibDems and Tories, and even in one or two cases to the Brexit Party. I see no way even a good campaign by Corbyn will change that now. But his campaigning skill will help: the losses will not be of the scale YouGov, in particular, likes to predict.
And where will we end up? Who knows? But I suspect a great many MPs fear it will be pretty much where we are now, with a hung parliament. There will be one or two fewer DUP, more SNP and LibDems, more Tories (because the ones thrown out will stay out) and fewer Labour MPs. But overall? There will still, I think, be a hung parliament. Because that is exactly where the country is. It is divided.
So, election anyone? is the right question. But the answer is a referendum I am afraid, and not a general election.
I can't see another way forward as yet.
I have no great desire for another referendum. But I do wish this matter to be resolved. I think a referendum the only way out of that. But this time the decision will have to be binding, either way.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Referendum ?
But what would the question be ?
I don’t think it would make any sense to have another referendum when those taking part don’t know what the Brexit option entails. Been there. Done that.
A ‘No Deal’ exit isn’t an option. There is no such arrangement possible; some on-going relationship with the EU will be unavoidable and the terms of that relationship constitute a ‘deal’ of some sort. Until that is clarified a referendum would be quite unsatisfactory.
The only valid purpose of a referendum (if it has one at all) is to approve or reject a proposal. We don’t currently have a viable or coherent proposal to take a vote on.
It would have to be yes or no to this one
“It would have to be yes or no to this one”
It was last time.
That would suffice as a range of answers, but what would be the question ?
Do we leave the EU on the terms agreed with it (YES) or remain a member of the EU (NO)
“Do we leave the EU on the terms agreed with it (YES) or remain a member of the EU (NO)”
That’ll do me, but only once those terms are actually agreed. I don’t think they are currently are they ?
Actually, they think they are…..
“Actually, they think they are…..” [terms actually agreed]
Think they are….. Quite.
Do you not think the LibDems shot themselves in the foot last night? by abstaining from a vote to protect the NHS. Even if it does ultimately turn out to be essentially meaningless as a part of Queens speech generally acknowledged as an election manifesto. Some LibDem voters in Twittersphere this morning indicating a turn to Labour next time.
Sorry – I missed it
Hazel says:
“Do you not think the LibDems shot themselves in the foot last night?”
I missed it too, but I’d guess …yes. They are good at foot shooting. They have form.
this was published today by the Lib Dems in the neighbouring constituency of Taunton.—
Why did the Lib Dems abstain on last night’s Labour amendment to the Queen’s Speech regarding NHS privatisation?
The vote was for an amendment to the Queen’s Speech, not a motion in its own right. It was what’s called a “regret” amendment to have a debate on the NHS. Brexit itself wasn’t mentioned in the amendment but is in the Queen’s Speech, along with the rest of the Government’s programme.
For this to become effective in law, the Queen’s Speech, including Brexit and everything else, would have passed. Anyone who voted through the amendment would have had to vote for the substantive motion for it to take effect. If you take the view we do that Brexit is fundamentally harmful to the NHS, you cannot support this amendment because it only takes effect if Brexit happens.
Alistair Carmichael also explained:
“We abstained for a few reasons :
1 The Health and Social Care Act has not ended a publicly funded and administered NHS.
2. Repealing the act would require another reorganisation of the NHS which is not what is we need right now.
Over half of GPs have an average waiting time for non-urgent appointments at their practice of over two weeks. More than half (55%) of British adults with a diagnosed mental health problem who sought NHS treatment say they had to wait more than 4 weeks to see a mental health specialist.- Instead of focusing on these problems, Labour is proposing to repeal a piece of legislation, without saying what they will replace it with.
3. It is classic Labour using the NHS as a political football. Presumably they want to distract attention from the fact that the Commons could have stopped Brexit last night but we didn’t because 19 Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives.”
I recall Lib Dem people promising to modify the bill when it was going through the House of Lords. It didn’t seem to happen according the book NHS SOS .
I must confess I don’t know what to make of it.
All I would say is that if we do have another referendumb, then it has to say HOW we will leave. And part of that has to have at the very least a customs union in it.
To not do so is just bloody stupid in my opinion.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“All I would say is that if we do have another referendumb, then it has to say HOW we will leave. ”
Agreed. To my mind you should have stopped there. because….
“And part of that has to have at the very least a customs union in it.”
That is not a requirement of the question, it’s something which if included or excluded would/might determine your voting preference. You’ve been tempted to lay down a ‘red line’. We have seen where that sort of thing gets us. If your ‘red line’ request demand is not met will you simply abstain ?
We must have a coherent question, with reasonable chance of assessing the implications of either option before we are asked to choose, though. I quite agree.
Thank you Andy.
the Council of Europe Vienna convention on referendums-as I read it -says that a specific action is binding whereas a principle or general question, needs another referendum.
28. The text submitted to referendum may be presented in various forms:
– a specifically-worded draft of a constitutional amendment, legislative enactment or other
measure
– repeal of an existing provision
– a question of principle (for example: “Are you in favour of amending the Constitution to
introduce a presidential system of government?”) or
– a concrete proposal, not presented in the form of a specific provision and known as a
“generally-worded proposal” (for example: “Are you in favour of amending the Constitution in
order to reduce the number of seats in Parliament from 300 to 200?”)21
29. A “yes” vote on a specifically-worded draft — at least in the case of a legally binding
referendum — means a statute is enacted and the procedure comes to an end, subject to
procedural aspects such as publication and promulgation. On the other hand, a “yes” vote on a
question of principle or a generally-worded proposal is simply a stage, which will be followed by
the drafting and subsequent enactment of a statute. Combining a specifically-worded draft with
a generally-worded proposal or a question of principle would create confusion, preventing
electors from being informed of the import of their votes and thereby prejudicing their free suffrage.
If we had followed this procedure, I doubt we would have been in the situation we are today.
Somewhere I read that the proposal had to be approved by over 50% of the electorate but then some argue abstention could be confused with non-approval.
The Liberals are a purely opportunistic party. They are still dominated in the top echelons by the free market right=wing Ashdown/Clegg Orange Book tendency . By their reluctance to cooperate with other opposition parties shows that they are angling to take back Tory seats in the South West and do not want be associated with Corbyn.
A referendum on Leave or the Henry V111th dogs dinner of a “deal” would be a disaster waiting to happen I’m afraid.
There should be another referendum as the 2016 one was unsafe (electoral fraud).
This is just natural justice. We cannot call what happened democracy.
The question about what question to ask is more difficult.
At this stage of the game I can’t see either a GE or a yes/no referendum effectively resolving anything. We’re effectively in FUBAR territory. In such situations the only sensible thing to do is nothing – i.e. revoke Article 50 – but ofc that’s not going to happen. Because of the sheer complexity of the problem – politically, constitutionally, legally, economically, emotionally, etc. – the historic pragmatism of the Brits to muddle through won’t (cannot) work on this occasion.
The nation is in for several decades of chronic instability which will inevitably impact most negatively on those who can least manage to deal with it, which in itself will impact heavily on future politics, leading to a more definitive swing either to the right or left. Only time will tell which.
Gregory Bateson and R.D. Laing concluded that double-bind situations result in schizophrenia. Seems to me that’s analogous to where we are right now. Is there a doctor in the House?
Is the stress getting to everyone? Does Corbyn ever walk in water? Is it to be or not be a referendum?
A further application of plebiscitary democracy (i.e., another referendum) in an attempt to resolve the unsatisfactory outcome of the initial misguided application of plebiscitary democracy in 2016 runs the risk of irreparably damaging public support for representative parliamentary democracy. This parliament, having finally voted to apply further scrutiny to and to be allowed to amend the draft EU withdrawal legislation before it, should be allowed to perform this task. And it is clear the EU is minded to provide the time for it to do so. The only questions that remain are the duration of any extension and what conditions might be attached. It may need a special summit of the Council to finalise the terms.
There is enormous pressure now on parliament to pass this withdrawal bill in some shape or form. Both the Tories and Labour know that they will face the wrath of voters if they fail to ensure the passage of this bill and then consent to a general election. Once the bill is passed, the UK will enter the transition phase and it will be for a new parliament to decide on the the terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.
Holding a general election either before passing this bill or following a failure to pass it would achieve little of benefit as it is more than likely that voters would return another hung parliament – though there is a possibility that the Tories might secure a majority. And we would be back to more rows about the terms of withdrawal. That is the last thing the majority of voters wants.
For Labour it would be a disaster as it would be assaulted from all sides and, with the terms of withdrawal unresolved, it would be unable to secure traction for its badly needed non-Brexit policy agenda.
But another referendum should be out of the question. There is no way that the terms of a referendum can be agreed while there is a major issue that might possibly be resolved by this means. Further consideration of the use of referendums and the process of conducting them and applying the results should be postponed until such time as there is no issue that might be resolved in this way.
I’ve been reading George Monbiot this morning in the Guardian this morning and he talking about ‘deliberative democracy’ and how to include more people in high level decision making
I used to work in tenant participation in the social housing sector and remain thoroughly unimpressed with devolving decision making downwards.
Why?
Because it is the quality of info our society is getting – that’s why? There is so much bullshit out here – the public sector treating people as ‘consumers’ to the notion of ‘taxpayers money’ and ‘balancing the books’ which has been put to the sword by our host.
I’m honestly all for devolution and more end user involvement – but not using the current models (which wrongly tell us MMT is from la-la land for example) and not until the public has been thoroughly re-educated about how public finance and tax actually works.
Deliberative democracy as Monbiot advocates it now would be like feeding caviar to pigs – ignorant pigs at that – I’m sorry but ignorance is our biggest issue in addressing the woes of our world at the moment.
I like the idea George describes
But informed decision making is vital
But there again, we may not have that already
@Pilgrim
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you, but……
“Deliberative democracy as Monbiot advocates it now would be like feeding caviar to pigs ….”
I took from what Monbiot is saying that the process of deliberative democracy is itself a major part of the education process. It is very different to be in a serious discussion forum where decisions have consequences than to spout bollox in the pub when everything is rendered as clear as crystal by the enlightenment which is alcohol’s great gift to humanity from the Gods. Because people (when they are sober) hate to look stupid they might do a little bit of homework before holding forth on subjects they know bugger-all about.
The wisdom of crowds is to be treated with a high degree of scepticism, but an agreed decision even if not perhaps the best decision, would at the very least benefit from a considered consensus and collective desire to give it a fair try.
Without going back to the article, I’m pretty sure he was saying that tackling Brexit would not be a good place to start cutting the deliberative teeth.
I read his piece as a wistful desire to have had this sort of deliberative forum available at the beginning of the Brexit shambles. A shambles that might have been averted.
We will have a constant stream of greater or lesser issues to deal with in the future (Events, dear boy. Events.) So perhaps well worth establishing a better form of deliberative process than the one we have now. I’m led to believe that there is much more local decision-making goes on throughout most of Europe than we are accustomed to here. We have been marginalised by four decades or more of increasingly centralised government decision-making on our behalf. It has been painfully obvious during the last three and a half years that is not before time that we clawed back some responsibility.
I put it to this blog and to George that we do not have a suitable informational environment for deliberative democracy as he lays it out. End of.
It is too often an ‘Opinionocracy’. You know this yourself from the trolling you get.
Too true! I’d suggest the current informational environment is only suitable for deliberative leakology – connived in by the media.
And I also agree with PSR that “ignorance is our biggest issue in addressing the woes of our world at the moment”.
I read about the happiness survey by ONS this morning – strangely, a lot of folk seem to be quite happy. Maybe that coincides with lack of knowledge?
What a mess!
An election is a gamble.
If there is another hung Parliament, which is probably quite likely, what does that tell us about ‘the will of the people’? That it is divided and unclear? Probably, but how then does that provide an mandate to move forward in any given direction? We could end up stuck in the same situation as now.
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that a second referendum is the only way to be able to provide any definitive way forward on this issue. But how to frame the question so that neither side is sold out. No deal cannot be on the paper, as it is not feasible. No deal only works in a fantasy world where you have no future relationship with the EU and Ireland.
Should it then be a question of the Government’s withdrawal agreement versus remain? Perhaps. Does that sell out people who want other forms of Brexit? Maybe – but at this point in time that is the deal on the table. Post-referendum there would be nothing to stop political parties from campaigning in an election to negotiate another form of Brexit. But I suspect a ‘remain’ result in that event would lead to a lot of relief and a lot of anger. You’d probably have a lot of people glad to be over it, and an alienated and radicalised fringe of people supporting the Brexit party. That is where Labour have to fill that void with an alternative program of regeneration, hope, and prosperity,
What possible reason could there be for defying the manifest Will of the People as expressed at the ballot box in 2017 and calling for a general election? The People knew they were voting for a Parliament for a fixed term until 2022. Woe betide any politician who suggests that the People in their manifest wisdom got that wrong or didn’t understand what they were doing.
🙂
That may be a blog tomorrow…..
Andrew says:
“What possible reason could there be for defying the manifest Will of the People as expressed at the ballot box in 2017 and calling for a general election? ”
Erm….. I’m not sure what you mean, Andrew.
I think the manifest view of the electorate in 2017 was “Meh !?’
What would you do with that ? I know what I think it meant, and what Theresa May should have done, about it, but what do you think it meant ?
Manifestly the People collectively decided that we should have a balanced Parliament in which no particular party had a majority, because that would force the MPs to cooperate, to reach a consensus position acceptable to those holding a range of viewpoints.
@Andrew.
Agreed. But Theresa May had a party internal power struggle to deal with so kept the process of Brexit negotiations entirely as an internal Tory Party matter and chose to ignore the result of the election she didn’t need to have called. 🙁
You massively misrepresent Corbyn and the Labour Party’s position on Brexit, as do nearly all msm.
It has a very clear policy when explained — which you don’t. And it is simple, when explained clearly. Labour to renegotiate, and put it to the people up against remain. Not difficult to understand, just impossible to know the result yet.
Please stop contributing to a belief that their policy is unclear. The outcome is unclear, necessarily in a democracy.
“In due course” is plainly wrong. When we know what Labour’s agreement with the EU is, is correct.
“They expect politicians to know what they think” – a silly non-sequitur.
You know all this, you’re being disingenuous.
If there’s to be a second referendum, it must have an unambiguous question, specify the minimum majority required — eg 67%, detail the procedure for leaving, and give the main consequences of leaving.
I am many things, but I am not stupid
And saying I misrepresent Corbyn’s position is to presume I am
It is not clear
And it is politically incompetent
Stop insulting your own intelligence by suggesting otherwise
David Penn says:
“……Corbyn and the Labour Party’s position on Brexit…..[…] It has a very clear policy when explained …
Well wtf do they not explain it. ??
Because it is most emphatically NOT clear, and will cost us all dear if they don’t a) get their bloody act together and b) explain what they propose. (Doesn’t actually matter if they get it as long as we know what they are aiming for)
I have no problem understanding the tactical shenanigans that have gone on in Parliamentary procedure. They have played it well and refused to be suckered. (Thank god for the SNP in this respect. The only party which has presented as both consistent and sane. Small wonder the Tories hate them.)
But WTF is the Labour Party vision of Brexit ? Labour IS committed to some sort of Brexit. Revoke isn’t an option on any table I’ve seen, and they shat on that in the 2017 manifesto and campaign…..so what is the labour Brexit we are supposed to vote for ?
Do tell…..
Duh. Listen carefully to Corbin. As he must have explained 100 times, it depends what he renegotiates with the EU. Where’s that crystal ball? I put it down somewhere….
David
There is good reason why what you say makes no sense
First, if you have to listen that carefully it’s bad politics
Second, that is because it will go wrong on the retelling
And, third, in Labour’s case it is clear not all are retelling the same way
Sorry, but you do not make a case
Richard
David Penn says:
“Duh. Listen carefully to Corbyn.”
David, please don’t come away with the impression that I’m somehow delighted to see Labour in disarray on this.
But I do think they are. And I find that deeply frustrating and sad. Labour MPs in strongly ‘leave’ constituencies are in a dreadful bind of the Party’s own making. The Party accepted the ‘will of the people’ meme and turned representatives into delegates. That was a profound error.
We are where we are now, and there is no clear way forward for any Party except the SNP who know what they want, and have not swerved from that. All the other parties have dickered about and shifted their ground. So the electorate doesn’t know what it will get unless it votes overwhelmingly enough for Johnsonite and Faragist brexiteers in which case we’ll get chaos. Sadly many people will vote for certain chaos rather than uncertain vague promises.
In Scotland I’ll be delighted to see Labour wiped out. In England and Wales, not so, because the alternative is frankly, frightening.
I think Labour’s Brexit policy is actually v straightforward:
1) negotiate a soft Brexit deal;
2) a referendum on Remain vs Soft Brexit.
That’s straightforward and will be easy to explain in an election campaign, where minds will be more focused. It’s certainly possible to criticise that policy for being “fence-sitting”, or for not reflecting the views of Labour party members or indeed most of the voters, but it’s not incoherent, at all. And in an election campaign where you have two extremes – the Tories saying “Brexit at any cost” and the Lib Dems saying “Revoke A50”, Jeremy Corbyn might well come across as the only adult in the room. That’s why I think Labour is going to do significantly better than what most of the polling is saying at the moment. Not well enough to win outright, mind, but 290-300 seats is certainly within reach.
Howard
Usually we agree, but on this we don’t
Nor, very clearly, do many in Labour: there is little cohesion around this
And there is good reason. This is a compromise. And whilst in theory it looks ok, in practice it obviously is not. If as McDonnell et al say Labour is a Remain party then the EU will not probably even want to negotiate a soft Brexit Labour does not believe in with them. Why would they? I would not. That would just be playing British politics and they won’t do that. And so in practice the policy has at its heart the usual Brexit conundrum of being an English fantasy. Cake and eat it is alive and well.
And that’s why it’s not a policy at all
Richard
Very well put, Howard, I just hope all the negative msm propaganda about Corbyn and Labour’s Brexit policy is ignored enough.
Why not address the deficiency I have highlighted?
It’s real
[…] much enjoyed this comment on the blog yesterday from someone called Andrew who has been a long time contributor. I know it […]