THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

A general election could be fast approaching, and there will be many positionings on Brexit, and some will need to be finely balanced.

Assuming Theresa May’s 2.5 Brexit deal is rejected today (which looks entirely likely) then there are machinations for a General Election (primarily within the Conservative Party); again this may not go ahead – but the question will be how each party stands on Brexit. And we may not see much of a change from current positionings.

Now the Conservatives will have possibly three potential positions – that could totally rip the party apart, as could the Labour Party.

The first issue will be are we remain or leave. The logical conclusion, and the one answer to attracting the most voters will be to say: We will negotiate an entirely new deal for leaving and then an entire deal for future relationship, which we will then put to a public referendum. This should mean that if the public decide the deal is not in their interest they can vote to remain or vote to leave on that deal. Whilst there is proportion of voters who wish for a No Deal/WTO Terms Brexit, this is a small proportion; however, a preferential referendum should prevent dilution of results for both sides, one where you can use a cross (for a single vote) or !number your ballot 1 – 3 (we use a similar principle for voting in Scotland).

The options being:
Leave without any deal/WTO Terms
Leave with (newly) negotiated deal
Remain.

So if I’m strongly in support of a No Deal Brexit (and don’t want the other options I can select No Deal with either an X or a 1 and leave the less blank, but say my preference is for Brexit but not remain, but I would prefer a deal over no deal, but would accept no deal I can mark my paper thusly:

No Deal – 2
Deal – 1
Remain – (either blank or 3)

And so the first preference system (aka Single Transferable Vote) requires that the option that wins requires 50%+1 of the vote (So the first ‘option’ to that magic number is the will of the people) – however that is not simply based on first preference but also on second preference.
So if you have something like this for 1st preference:
No Deal – 40%
New Deal – 16%
Remain – 44%

You then take the second preference of papers whose first preference was ‘New Deal’ and divide those to the other options:

No Deal – 40%+ 67% of 16% of All the votes (10.72% of all votes) = 50.72%
New Deal – 16%
Remain – 44% + 33% of 16% of the votes (5.28% of all votes) = 49.28%

As No Deal has a 50.72% majority we can see that is 50% of all votes plus 1 vote above (not 1%) it would be the option the nation should pursue.

Anyway whilst I may disagree with the legality of the result for the 2016 referendum, many within the UK don’t have that issue, so instead of talking about “respecting the result” – I want to talk about “respecting” them as people. That means any new government would be duty bound to negotiate a new deal, but also to put it to a confirmatory referendum (with beefed up rules on campaigning), a confirmatory referendum is not about leave or remain so much as it is about if we’re sure we wish to (as a public) enact the result of the 2016 referendum and also how we enact that result, or do not.

It means everyone can feel their voice has been adaquatly heard and it’s not a re-run of the 2016 referendum.

Now that seems to me to be the only logical way to solve it for each party currently divided on the issue.

Brexiteers can claim their options are not being diluted and remainers can’t claim the same either.

Of course the way each party will explain their brexit position to the nation will depend on who the leader is of the party at the time; internal and external polling etc; their party members; their core votes base etc. But otherwise we may be seeing the collapse of the two party system. Which is both good and bad.

If the two party system it means single-issue right-wing/centre ground parties like DUP/SNP/UKIP will have more power to decide government power and will be kingmakers, despite recieving less votes than other parties.

Alternatively the three traditional parties (Con.; Lab.; Lib.) may have to follow the example of Churchill and form a multi-party “war government”, and then internal multi-party leadership elections may have to take place.

Of course this last element is purely subjective; Some turkeys (aka some voters) seem to like voting for their political Christmas. Though they may not realise or see it as that.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Following on from the indicitive votes (round 1) last night, initially I’d said I thought parliamentary arithmetic may be on Theresa May’s side for vote 3 on her deal, and it still may be, but with the DUP appearing to be authentic and reliable in their decision not to support her deal (isn’t that part of the confidence and supply arrangement?).

Anyway the arithmetic looks something like this:
ERG Die Hards – 15 MPs (Against)
ERG Waverers – 43 MPs (Probably a mix of For and Against, but assume all vote in favour)
DUP – 10 MPs (Against)
May’s deal loving Tories – 218 MPs (For)
Soft-Brexit Tories – 30 MPs (For)
People’s Vote Tories – 7 MPs (Against)
Labour MPs with Tricky Brexit Seats & Independents – 7 (For)
Everyone else (including 7x Labour Brexiteers) – 308 MPs

Totals: 342 Against; 298 in Favour (Difference 44 votes)

To pass the 3rd “meaningful vote” needs 321 votes – So Theresa May needs just 23 votes. If it is even allowed to be retabled, which depends on the Speaker.

Parliamentary arithmetic without the DUP (over constitutional issues) and some Brexiteers (who want a very hard Brexit or No Deal Brexit) is a unlikely to pass. Which means British politics must hang its head in shame, and the hopes of many must pass to the indicitive votes round 2 – on Monday. Unless May can find 23 to support her, which assuming the 1 abstention last night and possibly the 1 guy unable to attend due to the birth of his child – may only be 21 votes, and oddly that seems significantly less of a hurdle than 23.

Honestly I wouldn’t say categorically at this point it won’t pass a 3rd time (three times the charm, 3rd time lucky etc) but mathematically doesn’t seem to be likely. Though when in recent times were the hard sciences a respected in Westminster? Right now I’m not sure the laws of physics apply there. Somehow Theresa May has survived when gravity would normally have crushed her government into a tiny particle.

If you’d like to do your own parliamentary arithmetic (using click buttons) to see who would need to switch to support May’s deal to help her win, visit this lovely page at The Guardian.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Indicative Votes Round 1 tonight – all fell, though Common Market & Second Ref proceed to next round – though that may not happen as May’s dodgy (Withdrawal Only) deal could come back for a third vote – most important political shift in the UKs history can be voted on more than once by everyone but the UK public.

It looks like May’s deal will pass on a third attempt, but this isn’t good news, looks like we’ll end up with a competent nasty billionaire (3 in the running) rather than the incompetent wife of a billionaire…

Oddly both Anna Soubry (Independent Group, former Tory) and even more oddly Ian “Nasty Bully” Blackford (SNP) are right – Anna Soubry clearly believes the second round of indicitive votes must go ahead, and Blackford believes a GE should be called..

Where they are both wrong however is on a) if the first will happen and b) how that will change the parliamentary arithmetic, a GE is unlikely to see any chance of a new government forming an overwhelming majority with enough internal cohesion to actually get a withdrawal agreement agreed or even anything close to an agreement over Brexit, No Brexit etc.

In fact we’re back to square one, in truth, though unofficially it looks like Theresa May’s deal will succeed and indicitive votes will fall by the wayside as irrelevant as they become in that scenario. The truth is the UK’s lack of a written constitution and two-party political system with FPTP voting has been shown up for what it is, only an attempt at democracy, in possibly the first time since before the Magna Carta (possibly the 1700s) the UK’s democracy has well and truly failed beyond all reason.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

“The People’s Vote campaign…have issued a formal statement of their position today in response to amendment H, saying “we have made it clear that we do not regard today as the right time to press the case for the public to be given a final say…”

Full MIRROR article here.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Theresa May was described as having “incredible resilience” by one commentator (BBC Parliament) – it seems to me she has the resilience of a cockroach in a nuclear holocaust – no one else wants it, and no one is prepared to vote against the cockroach in case they end up being put there against their own will.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

Worth a listen…

Listen to Antisemitism and the Left – Dr. Dave Rich, House of Commons, December 2018

One of many takeaways for me (worded in my own unique way) is that blaming the Rothschild bank for injustice is like blaming the Medici bank for Vietnam – unfounded and stupid (not to mention historically inaccurate)

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

“It is understood the egg was not thrown from a distance but was still in his hand when it hit the Labour leader’s head.”

Mirror Newspaper

The guy either thumped with the egg in his hand or slapped with the egg between his palm and the Leader of the Opposition’s head… Either way that’s not “throwing an egg” or being “egged” – and any-way you look at it, it’s basically “assault with an egg”…

Read the full Mirror article here.

THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE

As predicted Theresa May’s attempt to get just the withdrawal agreement through fell like a lump of solid iron in a bathtub – so now what?

Honestly, I would be looking at three or four different routes…

1. a. She calls a General Election (Without her resignation, I wouldn’t be surprised (at this point) if Theresa May refused to step down and before they dissolve parliament for the GE, she puts her deal back a 3rd/4th time, and this time it’s voted through, because there’s no more scared a Tory than one in fear of loosing his cushy seat).
1. b. Theresa May calls a General Election (no extra vote; she resigns).
1. c. Theresa May calls a General Election (no extra vote; and she doesn’t resign).

2. Indicative Votes on Monday present a plan – possibly a confirmatory referendum, possibly an agreement to withdraw from everything but the Customs Union, possibly in favour of Labour’s alternative Brexit Plan.

3. a. Theresa May calls a confirmatory referendum.
3. b. Theresa May pulls the UK into a no-deal brexit.
3. c. Theresa May cancels article 50.

4. a. Theresa May resigns and her successor calls a confirmatory referendum.
4. b. Theresa May resigns and her successor opts for No Deal.
4. c. Theresa May resigns and her successor asks for an extension so that they may completely renegotiate the deal.
4. d. Theresa May resigns and her successor cancels article 50.

*** EDIT ***
There is now talk of a 5th option, which is so hubris I don’t understand how this is even possible, kind of like 1. a. above.

5. Theresa May brings back her deal for a 3rd/4th vote next week in a “run off” with the winner (or least looser; or most supported) of the indicitive votes round 2, apparently Downing Street believes that will be a Customs Union, but if May is determined to scare the ERG I would have said that should be a Second Referendum, though that gamble may be too much. However, considering the Withdrawal Agreement doesn’t negate a future PM negotiating a Customs Union, it would be strange, but in this case not unexpected, to pit that against the PMs Withdrawal Agreement.

– If she wins her deal goes through.
– If she looses I’m not sure we’re technically any further forward, because a Customs Union is part of the “Future Relationship” so that’s not something that can be determined before we agree a the withdrawal agreement; unless of course she puts it against a Second Referendum, in which case that would be our next step.
***END EDIT***

Now most of those routes are “political suicide” – and honestly even as a Labour voter I’m not sure parliamentary arithmetic post a GE will change enough to see any one solution work, rather a coalition or confidence-and-supply arrangement will be required. Which may mean my suggested idea for a way through (GE, negotiate new deal and then confirmatory referendum) could actually be something the current opposition parties – the SNP, Lib Dems, “Change UK Party” formerly known as the Independent Group and the UK Labour Party may have to agree to satisfy just about everyone on the left and they may have to govern as a “rainbow coalition”. But what it can’t be claimed by the Conservatives next time is that they’re:

A. The Party of Sound Economy
B. The Strong & Stable Party
Or that the “Rainbow Coalition” would be a “Coalition of Chaos”.

And in truth, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess now, without blaming anything, if in 2010, David Cameron hadn’t charmed Nick Clegg more than Gordon Brown had. But that’s the past and I’m not sure what the way forward is beyond the weekend…