Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[grumbler]

How do we decide on the actual definition of a Brexit? The only remotely realistic scenario is having a "no deal" and "with a deal" option and "with a deal" has at least half a dozen unanswered questions, and that's just on the most macro of scales.

Parliament (the sovereign power in the UK) has already ruled out a no-deal Brexit, so it needn't be on the ballot.  The ballot should offer a choice between:
(1) the deal on the table (negotiated by May) or
(2) cancel Brexit.

Unless a majority in Parliament really can't live without Brexit, this referendum would provide a final answer.  And the die-hard Brexiteers would have to convince Parliament to over-ride the referendum and crash out with no deal, which seems a tall order.

[The Brain]

We don't really know if Parliament is sovereign or not. Will Johnson obey a law that says that he has to ask for an extension? If Parliament can't make him then it isn't sovereign.

[The Brain]

Also, Parliament has voted for No Deal by voting for Brexit without specifying that there has to be a deal, and then voting against the negotiated deal.

[Iormlund]

So what would you put on the ballot paper then?

1. Remain
2. No Deal
3. Leave EU but remain in single market and customs union
4. Leave EU and customs union, remain in single market
5. Leave EU and single market, remain in customs union
6. Leave EU, single market, and customs union

?

Would it be a single-choice thing? Because then the only two possible results are 1. and 2. as the not-entirely-insane Leave votes will be dividied up between 3 to 6.

Or maybe we should have a sub-section, rename 2. to "Leave" and then if you marked that, you get to chose between the above 2-6. What would happen to the main Leave vote though, if the enlightened citizen forgot to put a second X? Would it count as no deal?

It's not THAT complicated.

Rank your preferences from the following list. 1 is is most while 4 is least desirable:

• Remain
• Corbyn's imaginary deal
• May's deal
• No Deal (every poll needs a Jaron option)

Each round the least voted option is eliminated and its votes redistributed to the next stated preference.

[The Minsky Moment]

Some kind of ranked voting system is needed to avoid the Condorcet Paradox that trapped Parliament.

Alas, because such a system requires a slight modicum of thought to grasp, it will be instantly rejected by the Crash Out and Burn lobby as some treacherous continental trick. 

[Sheilbh]

Also, Parliament has voted for No Deal by voting for Brexit without specifying that there has to be a deal, and then voting against the negotiated deal.

Also, technically, leaving is a matter of EU law not UK law. Parliament didn't vote for No Deal but they did vote to submit the Article 50 notification. But leaving after two years whatever the status of the deal is European law. There's nothing Parliament can do to prevent (subject to extensions agreed by all member states or revoking the notification).

Is there precedent in recent times?

If the Spanish King were to do that it would be a huge, huge constitutional crisis.

Not since Queen Anne. It would be a huge crisis here. The Queen will do whatever it takes to keep the monarchy out of politics.

Having said that our system has a huge issues (due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act) because on prorogation for example, it's a prerogative power. The position is clear: the monarch follows the advice of their ministers when exercising prerogative power. But our entire system is based on the principle that the ministers have a majority in the Commons, which they don't, and if not there will be an election, which now the Commons refuses to call.

But this is not a real option. A no-customs border between the two Irelands would amount to a free trade deal with the EU, except it would channel all such trade through there. This is not acceptable for the EU even if it would be for Ireland.

This is the issue, which I think is ultimately from the EU's timetable. There were three priorities that had to be settled before discussion of a future trade deal: citizens' rights, financial settlement and the Irish border, which depends on the nature of a future trade deal.

For my money I would not be surprised if Johnson screws the DUP and other unionists who have legitimate concerns. Their old fear has never been that Dublin will take them over, but London will stop caring and betray them. Johnson strikes me as the type who could betray them.

Does anyone actually want Brexit at this point? Does it still enjoy support in the UK?

Normal polls show a small but consistent majority for Remain at this point roughly 40-45%. ButI think it depends on if you phrase it as how would you vote if there is another vote tomorrow, or should we overturn the results of the last referendum. I think the latter would struggle to get support.

The normal rule is that he will be replaced by an MP from the opposition (since he was a tory back in the day). We can expect the Johnson crew to break this unwritten rule too.

I think Sir Lindsay Hoyle is the favourite, which may avoid that. But didn't Michael Martin already break this? Similarly Labour always run a candidate against (non-Labour and non-Bercow) speakers, so it's not a real convention.

I think that poll Garbo posted is interesting. It's not something I'd be comfortable with if Johnson does decide to not follow the law. Especially on the Tory voters, which is one of the things I always find baffling about his position v Corbyn's - at the last election Remain voters were a larger proportion of Tory voters than Leave voters were of Labour.

[Solmyr]

Seems like Labour isn't letting go the idea of nationalising rail, mail, water, and energy.

Those shouldn't have been privatized in the first place. Those are like the basic functions of the state!

[The Brain]

Seems like Labour isn't letting go the idea of nationalising rail, mail, water, and energy.

Those shouldn't have been privatized in the first place. Those are like the basic functions of the state!

Er... wut?

[Admiral Yi]

doublewut

[Barrister]

Seems like Labour isn't letting go the idea of nationalising rail, mail, water, and energy.

Those shouldn't have been privatized in the first place. Those are like the basic functions of the state!

I can tell you that out here, only 2 of the four is run by the "state".  First class mail is handled by Canada Post, which clearly qualifies as a Crown Corporation.

Water is provided by EPCOR, a company wholly owned by the City of Edmonton.  I wouldn't necessarily call the City the "state".  But here's the thing - they also provide water in various communities throughout Alberta and BC that have nothing to do with Edmonton itself.  EPCOR is really just a for-profit enterprise that just so happens to be owned by a municipality.

[Tonitrus]

The weird thing with energy in the UK, or least as it appears to me (an outside visitor)...is that most of the so-called "energy companies" really just seem to actually be energy "brokers".  Most don't seem to produce any energy, they just monitor my meter and sell it to me.

[Agelastus]

Having said that our system has a huge issues (due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act) because on prorogation for example, it's a prerogative power. The position is clear: the monarch follows the advice of their ministers when exercising prerogative power. But our entire system is based on the principle that the ministers have a majority in the Commons, which they don't, and if not there will be an election, which now the Commons refuses to call.

I think that the issues with the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and its incompatibility with our system is one of the few things I believe I can be certain that you, me and Richard Hakluyt are in full agreement about.

And I haven't said this yet but it's good to see you back on the board Sheilbh; you were missed.

[Sheilbh]

I think that the issues with the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and its incompatibility with our system is one of the few things I believe I can be certain that you, me and Richard Hakluyt are in full agreement about.

Although, I'm not sure an election would necessarily deliver an answer either.

And I haven't said this yet but it's good to see you back on the board Sheilbh; you were missed.

Thanks

[ulmont]

The weird thing with energy in the UK, or least as it appears to me (an outside visitor)...is that most of the so-called "energy companies" really just seem to actually be energy "brokers".  Most don't seem to produce any energy, they just monitor my meter and sell it to me.

That's how most "deregulated" and "competing" utilities work in the States as well - you get your choice of three marketing companies all paying the one gas/electric/etc. company that owns the actual pipes/lines/etc.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I've checked up on the speaker convention and completely concede that there is no such convention, my memory is either playing me false or I have succumbed to propaganda 

On the utilities; they are quite heavily regulated and are only allowed to make "normal" profits. They have been poor investments as the profits have only averaged about 5% or so. More socially minded competitors have failed or made losses due to the tight margins in the business. The untilities are far more responsive to customer requirements than they were back in the 1970s. I tend to think of them as a fairly succesful bit of outsourcing.

One thing Labour could do, it would be far less contentious, is set up a state competitor and compete for business in the usual way. If Labour is correct and we are being ripped off then the new entity will sweep the floor; my suspicion is that it would make a loss/be indistinguishable from the other companies/be kept afloat by ideologues.