Thanks to May’s incompetent leadership and failure to deliver Brexit, the Tories could lose 60 seats were a General Election held today.
Telegraph article here (may be paywalled).
The article goes on:
Serves the buggers right.
If the Conservative Party had been united in one vision of “Leave”, May would have been able to deliver it. The fact that the Conservatives are so badly divided means, in my opinion, that no Conservative leader could have got “Leave” through the Commons.
If the Conservatives fracture over Brexit, that’s a good thing, in my opinion. In a parliamentary system, members of a party have to be united on the major issues of the day. If they’re not, then the system breaks down into paralysis.
IIRC, no major party, not the Tories nor Labour were in favor of Leave. Cameron held the referendum because he thought it would surely fail and shut up the likes of Nigel Farage and UKIP. But it passed.
I don’t think that there is a majority in the country for any particular version of Leave, nor is there a majority for Remain, so the details might never be worked out without consensus.
The choice was too simplistic. Leave and Remain are extremes. It is possible to Leave but stay very close to the EU and it is possible to Remain but want to distance yourself greatly from it in many aspects.
Even with two people the choice would be hard. Imagine a married couple having trouble being given the choice between “divorce” and “stay together.” A person could want a divorce but remain close and civil. A person could want to stay together simply for financial reasons, have an open marriage, or for the children, or both could want any point in between or the extreme versions of each.
If both spouses “vote” stay together, but one wants to go to marriage counseling and reignite the relationship and the other wants to remain married so he doesn’t have to live in his buddy’s garage, but wants to bang other chicks, they didn’t “vote” for the same thing.
I agree with your comments about it being too simplistic. In one of these threads I commented that referendums need to be more carefully organized for major decisions, and referred to the constitutional amending formula in your home state. It struck me as a much better way to do it:
1 Voters had to petition the Legislature for an amendment.
2 The Legislature debated the proposal and if it passed, a referendum was called to approve in principle.
-
Voters then vote to decide if they approved of the proposal in principle.
-
If the voters approved in principle, a constitutional convention reviewed the proposal in detail and drafted an amendment, with clear indication of how it would work and fit in with the rest of the state Constitution: implications, good and bad.
-
A second referendum would then be held, with the voters deciding whether to adopt the amendment.
That type of model strikes me as a much better way to get popular decision-making, but also incorporate detailed reviews before the final vote is held.
Too bad no-one suggested it to that coward Cameron, but he just saw it as a way to shut up Eurosceptics in his own party, not the most important decision in this generation for British voters.
Nitpick. That is the procedure for calling a constitutional convention. To pass an amendment in this state, 2/3rds of each House of the Legislature must approve an amendment, and then it is put to a majority vote of the people. No citizen referenda here.
What I would do if I were May is hold a plebiscite with three choices: The deal she negotiated; hard Brexit; Remain. Then drop the lowest one and ask the voters to choose between the remaining two. Then stick with it. Of course, this requires parliament accepting this. Fat chance.
You don’t make major changes with a 51% vote. Even America’s Founding Fathers, despite their stupidities about slaves and guns, knew this much. Cameron should have been arrested and imprisoned for reckless driving.
When I read posts or articles about the on-going U.K. cluster-fuck, it almost seems like some M.P.'s are concerned about their re-election! This is absolutely disgraceful. Their only concern should be what’s best for their country.
Hope this helps! :rolleyes:
I’ve never understood, throughout this whole Brexit thing, why everyone is acting like because the referendum was what, 52, 54% leave, the UK must now exit. I had understood that the referendum was non-binding and advisory in the first place. With such a slim margin of victory, it seemed like the reasonable choice would have been to acknowledge the apparent desire for it, then establish an organization to look into it and deliver some plans to the government within, say, 5 years on how to accomplish it, and what the costs and benefits would be, so they could make a decision on what plan to enact, if any, at that time.
Instead, they just went “YOLO” like they say, it seems and jumped in the deep end.
We could, of course, be like America, and make major changes - like electing a President - on a minority of votes.
A majority is a majority. The UK operates a first past the post system. Perhaps all MPs with slender majorities should stand for re-election?
Was the vote not specified beforehand to be explicitly non-binding and advisory? Such that the government was under no legal obligation to actually make it happen, especially not immediately? That’s partly a genuine question: I think it was, but if I’ve misunderstood that, then I understand the behavior of the past few years a little better.
Regardless, even if it was binding, it’s still being rushed at an absurd pace. Rather than take the several years that would reasonably be needed to prepare for such a thing and do it in the least harmful way possible, May or somebody jumped in the deep end and triggered Article 50 before having a completely rock-solid plan for the entire situation - negotiations, proposals for the post-brexit situation, and so on - in hand.
Electing presidents and MP’s isn’t a major change, it’s a routine change that we do every 4 years(ish). Withdrawing from a decades long international treaty, renegotiating all our trade deals and ending much of our co-operation with Europe is a major change that should have had a higher threshold.
As we’ve seen, simple demographic changes will mean that if/when Brexit happens, there will no longer be a majority to leave, simply due to older voters dying off and younger people reaching voting age. If you’d had a threshold of 60-70% and Leave had won, this would not be an issue.
It’s a bit complicated. Legally the Ref was non-binding (and explicitly chosen to be so when discussed in Parliament), however the government at the time told the public that they would enact whatever choice was made.
After the vote May decided that the Ref was binding enough that she could use government powers to declare A50 (Article 50 - the mechanism for withdrawing from the EU) without parliaments input, but then there was a big court case that basically ruled that May didn’t have that power, and that parliament had to approve A50.
Unfortunatly Parliament was spooked by the Leave win (having expected a clear majority for Remain), and somewhat intimidated by the newspapers attacks on anyone who was against it (see here and here for example), and voted to approve A50.
The government has then spent 2 years realising, amongst other things, that the 52% leave don’t actually agree with each other, and that there is no majority for any single leave plan. In fact recent votes have shown that there is no majority for any plan, including Remain. In the meantime though our Electoral Commision has investigated and found that the Leave campaign broke the law during the Ref, seriously enough that if the Ref had been binding they would have had to rerun it, however because it was non-binding they have no power to overturn it.
So basically we’re supposed to ignore all the problems as it’s non-binding and unimportant, but any suggestion of not following it is undemocratic, traitorous and against the will of the people.
People keep saying that; it doesn’t mean that it’s true.
Yup.
I have a very different take: most MPs favour Remain, and they have taken the opportunity of May no longer having a majority in Parliament to try to derail Brexit. Had may not fucked up the election, Brexit under May’s plan would be done and dusted.
Thank you; I hadn’t known that there was some promise to enact the results of the referendum. That was rather stupid on the part of whoever made it, when they had it already set up to be non-binding.
And then it sounds like May compounded that by triggering A50 much too early, far before a solid plan had been laid out.