Brexit discussion thread II

joeysoap

Water John wrote: »

If sterling falls against the dollar, it drives up oil prices. If the euro travels the same path, it will drive up oil prices. Oil traded in dollars.

I understand that. But sterling has fallen substantially against the dollar in the past 12 months, the euro hasn't.

Yet our petrol has increased but theirs appears to have fallen?

Leonard Hofstadter

joeysoap wrote: »

I understand that. But sterling has fallen substantially against the dollar in the past 12 months, the euro hasn't.

Yet our petrol has increased but theirs appears to have fallen?

I was going to say the same thing, I've lived in the UK for almost 5 years now but I'm back in Ireland quite often. I noticed it during the summer that for the first time it was cheaper to buy fuel in the UK, in fact I could buy Super Unleaded for less in the UK than I could buy regular petrol in Ireland. (Super Unleaded is between 7-11 p a litre more expensive than the standard stuff depending on who you buy it from.)

Before it was definitely cheaper to buy fuel in Ireland, and neither country has changed the amount of duty levied on petrol over the past few years.

So I don't understand why petrol isn't cheaper in Ireland to be honest - as oil is traded in dollars and the euro is at its strongest against the dollar in years, it really shouldn't cost so much.

Peregrinus

joeysoap wrote: »

I understand UK nationals reasons for applying for Irish passports,

I don't understand our reason for issuing them.

They are Irish citizens. They are entitled to passports.

joeysoap wrote: »

If half the UK carry EU passports why would they bother wanting to remain?

So that they don't have to leave the UK in order to enjoy their rights as EU citizens.

Peregrinus

captainspeed wrote: »

I was going to say the same thing, I've lived in the UK for almost 5 years now but I'm back in Ireland quite often. I noticed it during the summer that for the first time it was cheaper to buy fuel in the UK, in fact I could buy Super Unleaded for less in the UK than I could buy regular petrol in Ireland. (Super Unleaded is between 7-11 p a litre more expensive than the standard stuff depending on who you buy it from.)

Before it was definitely cheaper to buy fuel in Ireland, and neither country has changed the amount of duty levied on petrol over the past few years.

So I don't understand why petrol isn't cheaper in Ireland to be honest - as oil is traded in dollars and the euro is at its strongest against the dollar in years, it really shouldn't cost so much.

Because only a relatively small part of the price at the pump prepresents the cost of buying oil on the wholesale markets.

A large part of the cost is made up of excise duty, and (in the UK) excise is denominated in sterling, and when sterling falls .

The figures here aren't anything like correct - I'm pulling them out of the air - but they'll illustrate the point;

Suppose a litre of petrol in the UK costs GBP 1, made up of GBP 0.60 for the cost of the fuel plus the seller's markup plus VAT, and GBP 0.4 for excise. At GBP1 = EUR 1.50, this equals EUR 1.50

Sterling now falls by 50% against both the Euro and the US dollar. GBP 1 now equals EUR 0.75.

The sterling cost of buying the fuel doubles, to GBP 1.20. Excise is still 0.40. So total cost at the pump is GBP 1.60.

GBP 1 now equals EUR 0.75, so GBP 1.60 = EUR 1.20. So, as far as the Euro buyer is concerned, petrol in the UK is now cheaper than it used to be.

The reality is more complex and the figures are of course different, but this is basically what is happening. In Euro terms, the part of the price-at-the-pump which represents an internationally traded commodity should not be affected by movements in the value of sterling, but the cost elements added in the UK, of which excise is the biggest, will be.

joeysoap

Peregrines wrote: »

They are Irish citizens. They are entitled to passports.

As Irish citizens they were quite happy with UK passports until now ?


So that they don't have to leave the UK in order to enjoy their rights as EU citizens

Exactly.

Question ; as Irish citizens are they entitled to hold ECIH card and if so who pays?

Ps if I were of Irish descent in the uk I would probably do the same, but it came to my attention earlier in the year while on holidays in Tenerife when I heard 'British' ex pats were looking for Irish passports in order to keep their EU rights.

Zubeneschamali

joeysoap wrote: »

As Irish citizens they were quite happy with UK passports until now ?

People are either entitled to an Irish passport or they are not. If they are entitled, and they apply, they get one.

So your real question is "Why are they applying now?" and the answer is obvious - Irish citizens are EU citizens. These UK citizens were up to Brexit, but are now being dragged out of the EU against their will.

if you are suggesting that we rub salt in it by denying them the Irish passport they are entitled to and abandon them to the Brexiteers, I think that is a very heartless suggestion (not to mention illegal and unconstitutional).

ArmaniJeanss

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

People are either entitled to an Irish passport or they are not. If they are entitled, and they apply, they get one.

So your real question is "Why are they applying now?" and the answer is obvious - Irish citizens are EU citizens. These UK citizens were up to Brexit, but are now being dragged out of the EU against their will.

if you are suggesting that we rub salt in it by denying them the Irish passport they are entitled to and abandon them to the Brexiteers, I think that is a very heartless suggestion (not to mention illegal and unconstitutional).

It sticks in the craw though that some percentage of the new applicants will likely have voted Brexit, and are using the Irish passport thing as a 'best of both worlds'.

joeysoap

I accept it's complicated

Petrol in Newry yesterday £1.118
Few months ago £1.238

Petrol in Dundalk yesterday (varies) around €1.319
Few months ago €1.259

Calina

joeysoap wrote: »

As Irish citizens they were quite happy with UK passports until now ?


So that they don't have to leave the UK in order to enjoy their rights as EU citizens

Exactly.

Question ; as Irish citizens are they entitled to hold ECIH card and if so who pays?

Ps if I were of Irish descent in the uk I would probably do the same, but it came to my attention earlier in the year while on holidays in Tenerife when I heard 'British' ex pats were looking for Irish passports in order to keep their EU rights.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the EHIC card. Typically the EHIC card is available wherever you're paying social insurance payments. YOu need to provide evidence that you are ordinarily residence in Ireland to get an EHIC card issued by the Irish health system so no, they aren't entitled to an EHIC card issued by the HSE or DoH or whoever actually issues it in Ireland. They at a minimum will need a PPS number which they are unlikely to have if they have never actually lived in Ireland.

Additionally, continued access to EHIC coverage for the UK is currently the subject of negotiations (just wait until they get on to discovering that they might lose Roam Like Home) so whether that changes or not is currently uncertain for UK based people.

To be honest I have sympathy for around 48% of the population of the UK. They've been sold down the river and I'd be wealthy if I got ten quid for every time someone said "it worked before the EU, they can get visas like every other country they aren't losing rights". I don't have a lot of sympathy for people suggesting we should close our borders to people who are constitutionally granted citizenship but who may have not previously done the paperwork because between the CTA and the EU, and general freedom of movement and establishment, it wasn't urgently required. Passports are expensive enough as it is, without also dealing with bureaucracy.

That being said, absolutely everyone I know from the UK who has done the paperwork in the last 12 years has noted that Ireland has made the process very straightforward for them.

Calina

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It sticks in the craw though that some percentage of the new applicants will likely have voted Brexit, and are using the Irish passport thing as a 'best of both worlds'.

It isn't that it sticks in the craw for me; I just find it profoundly hypocritical.

demfad

Corbyn just stated on BBC world at one that Labour now 'Open to' economic Union with EU.
Economic Union being permanent membership of the single market. He got there in the end.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

Corbyn just stated on BBC world at one that Labour now 'Open to' economic Union with EU.
Economic Union being permanent membership of the single market. He got there in the end.

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

Well it sounds like a Norwegian deal in some form or other which I'd agree would be inferior compared to today's set up but it would most likely also be the quickest way back to full membership again. The problem is the whole Brexit campaign will keep ripping at it because they don't get to see the effect of it all.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

Good afternoon!

This is why I've been saying that a "soft Brexit" is really no Brexit. It is an attempt to stay in by the backdoor.

No control of borders, no control of trade policy (if this includes staying in the customs union), no ultimate control over legislation. Continued contributions into the EU's coffers.

I'm not entirely opposed to using the term "vassal state" to describe this structure. There's no point in leaving the EU if it means adopting this model. It definitely isn't what the British public voted for.

Labour seem to change their colours depending on where the wind goes. It is why they don't have any credibility on this issue. Telling the public in the election that they were leaving the customs union and single market and then saying we'll stay in the next breath. No cries of u-turn king yet though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

This is why I've been saying that a "soft Brexit" is really no Brexit. It is an attempt to stay in by the backdoor.

No control of borders, no control of trade policy (if this includes staying in the customs union), no ultimate control over legislation. Continued contributions into the EU's coffers.

I'm not entirely opposed to using the term "vassal state" to describe this structure. There's no point in leaving the EU if it means adopting this model. It definitely isn't what the British public voted for.

Labour seem to change their colours depending on where the wind goes. It is why they don't have any credibility on this issue. Telling the public in the election that they were leaving the customs union and single market and then saying we'll stay in the next breath. No cries of u-turn king yet though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The British public seem to disagree with you:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/17/majority-of-brexiters-would-swap-free-movement-for-eu-market-access?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The majority of Brexit supporters would be happy to swap European free movement for single market access, according to two studies which suggest ways for Britain to pull back from the brink in the upcoming negotiations.

Can you provide any substantiation for your assertion that YOU KNOW what the British people voted for and that it was for a Brexit outside of the Customs Union and Single Market?

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

Yes. But it is objectively far superior to the option of leaving the customs Union and single market which is where Labour have moved from and the Conservatives are.

Edit: Just to add that apart from saving the British economy (and potentially its society as it is now) membership of the SM and CU solves the Irish question.
No other credible solution has been aired after well over a year. This isn't Labour's fault.

The UK government should have considered Ireland when embarking on Brexit or (in theory) should have considered potential Brexit when embarking on the GFA.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

Well post-Brexit every deal is going to be inferior to the one the UK had. Now damage limitation is the priority.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just baffling. That's an objectively inferior option to the situation that existed on the 22 June last year. It's EU membership without any say of influence at all.

We all know the best option is to stay in the EU, the question is which Brexit option is least damaging.

The closer the chosen option is to staying in the EU, the less damaging it will be.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We all know the best option is to stay in the EU, the question is which Brexit option is least damaging.

The closer the chosen option is to staying in the EU, the less damaging it will be.

And Labour has now positioned themselves as a different option to the Tories. They will still exit the EU but will not pull the trigger to the gun pointed at their heads, which the UK government seems intent on doing right now. They will try to get some of the moderate votes of people that will realise that going full nuclear Brexit is not a solution. Leaving every thing related to the EU, which seems to be the option that they are going for now, will not help anyone.

Yes they will lose some votes from Labour voters that want to get rid of the EU, then again they should gain votes from those that believe leaving the EU will cause untold damage as they see it. Risky, but you do not get anything by just saying no and not presenting an alternative to the status quo.

Water John

Certainly, there is now clear daylight between LB and Con. This makes Parliament very interesting.
Some Con MPs who see the disaster of Hard Brexit, will take some persuading to vote for the Govn't on this. Time to back up your beliefs.
So the present Parliament is interesting, without looking post next election.

No doubt many lobbying sectors, are getting their message through to politicians of how, disastrous Hard Brexit looks like.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Well it sounds like a Norwegian deal in some form or other which I'd agree would be inferior compared to today's set up but it would most likely also be the quickest way back to full membership again. The problem is the whole Brexit campaign will keep ripping at it because they don't get to see the effect of it all.

The EFTA (Norwegian) model would mean that Britain would have to accept all four freedoms - people, goods, services, capital - while fully implementing EU laws and regulations. However, Britain would have no influence or veto on these laws and regulations.

I think every single one of the EU 27 would be very happy to see Britain adopt the EFTA model.

demfad

Any "transition" deal will look exactly like the situation now. Any prospect for a bespoke "transition" deal is gone because not enough progress has been made to discuss trade and also because there is zero trust especially after the immigration paper leak.
Thus the "transition" deal is not really a transition deal because they have nothing to transition too. Most of this "transition 3 years" will be taken up in completing the divorce talks. The time the UK has to negotiate a deal and then get the necessary infrastructure, systems, regulatory bodies etc. in place after just isn't there.
Realistically some kind of EFTA arrangement is all that could feasably be managed in an orderly fashion in any available timeframe.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

Well it sounds like a Norwegian deal in some form or other which I'd agree would be inferior compared to today's set up but it would most likely also be the quickest way back to full membership again. The problem is the whole Brexit campaign will keep ripping at it because they don't get to see the effect of it all.

Good evening!

Did you miss the memo? The UK voted to leave the European Union and most want to just get on with it.

In Parliament meanwhile it is looking like Jeremy Corbyn could have more rebels than Theresa May this evening. I hope the bill will helpfully dilute some of the Henry VIII powers but I'm fairly sure that it won't be voted against.

It isn't even just Labour Brexiteers like John Mann or Kate Hoey that will rebel. Even former Europe minister Caroline Flint will vote for the legislation. Brexit will be formally enshrined in law. Just when you thought Jeremy was an electable leader we see yet more discord in parliamentary Labour.

The game is up. People just want Brexit to be done and dusted. That includes a lot of remain voters. As the legislative agenda for Brexit makes its way through parliament it will make one thing clear. The UK is serious about leaving.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Billy86

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes they will lose some votes from Labour voters that want to get rid of the EU, then again they should gain votes from those that believe leaving the EU will cause untold damage as they see it. Risky, but you do not get anything by just saying no and not presenting an alternative to the status quo.

That's actually largely how they got Brexit.

oppenheimer1

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EFTA (Norwegian) model would mean that Britain would have to accept all four freedoms - people, goods, services, capital - while fully implementing EU laws and regulations. However, Britain would have no influence or veto on these laws and regulations.

I think every single one of the EU 27 would be very happy to see Britain adopt the EFTA model.

It is, quite frankly, exactly what the EU want. It would see the UK establishment utterly defeated taking not making laws while still leaving their markets open and keeping their contributions coming in.

Any other state contemplating leaving and seeing that as the outcome will not bother.

blanch152

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It is, quite frankly, exactly what the EU want. It would see the UK establishment utterly defeated taking not making laws while still leaving their markets open and keeping their contributions coming in.

Any other state contemplating leaving and seeing that as the outcome will not bother.

Agreed, that has been the EU gameplan from day 1.

The UK only have two options, accept that option and keep their people wealthy or choose a very hard Brexit and watch their economy plummet.

Nody

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK only have two options, accept that option and keep their people wealthy or choose a very hard Brexit and watch their economy plummet.

And if they go that route every single Bremoaner will be out crying in the newspapers about how it was a missed chance of a lifetime. Look this is harsh to say but UK needs the planned Brexit they want (i.e. crash out without a deal) a decade of realization before they are ready to rejoin again. That's the only way you'll get a new set of politicians who are actually living in the 21st century rather than in the dark ages (only look at the new Tory candidate leader's view on abortion due to rape for example). It will be a cleansing steel bath for the parties and yes it will be woe for the country but for their long term success and welfare they need politicians who stopped seeing the world through the rose tinted lenses of a UK empire era (and ensure more of that generation are dead and hence not pandered to by politicians). They will then be ready to rejoin EU and take a lead on reformation and modernizing UK's economy etc. It's harsh but this is a democracy; they need to implement the change and it's not happening today with the current parties and leadership teams.

Water John

First Bill votes tonight.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

First Bill votes tonight.

Only a miracle will stop it between Tories, DUP and at least 7 Liberals who've said to refuse the whip on the topic.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EFTA (Norwegian) model would mean that Britain would have to accept all four freedoms - people, goods, services, capital - while fully implementing EU laws and regulations. However, Britain would have no influence or veto on these laws and regulations.

I think every single one of the EU 27 would be very happy to see Britain adopt the EFTA model.

Also the Norway pays the same per capita as the UK so no £350 million like wot it said on the side of the bus.

And the Norwegian model means no passporting for financial services.

But on the plus side the UK will control farming and fishing but it's a nett importer of food and will control fishing, but Grove has already said that other nations would be allowed fish.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Only a miracle will stop it between Tories, DUP and at least 7 Liberals who've said to refuse the whip on the topic.

Cash for Ash hasn't gone away. Junior didn't mention a trip. The whole Metro campaign. And the DUP have more than a few skeletons in the cupboard.

One definition of an honest politician it that when they are bought they stay bought. Remember the Billion Pounds the DUP were promised ?
DUP-Tory £1bn deal 'needs Parliament's approval'

If there is a backbencher revolt the funds might not be approved.
And any Northern Ireland party can tell you exactly what a promise is worth.

View

It should be pointed out that the UK Labour Party is just as hostile to FoM as the Conservatives. As such the Norwegian style option (EFTA/EEA + Schengen) is not on the agenda as neither the EFTA countries nor the EU ones will consider such an option.

The other EEA governments have no incentive to aid the UK in discriminating against THEIR citizens while simultaneously giving the UK all the benefits of EEA membership.

View

Sand wrote: »

View wrote: »

No, they won't. The UK will just admit more non-EU immigrants instead. The average Brexiter just has a hang-up about EU immigrants, the much larger numbers of non-EU that arrive every year aren't an issue they get upset about at all.

They might. They might not. Brexit was a very definite rejection of mass immigration.

There is an old saying that actions speak louder than words. And the actions by the UK's Brexit government is to continue their policy of the mass-admission of non-EU immigrants to the UK just as did before the referendum for every year they have held governmental office.

And, no, all those pro-Brexit politicians, commentators and members of the public who were all so "deeply concerned" about immigration during the referendum couldn't care less about it now. It is only EU immigration they have a melt down over.

flutered

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, that has been the EU gameplan from day 1.

The UK only have two options, accept that option and keep their people wealthy or choose a very hard Brexit and watch their economy plummet.

speaking to an english guy today, he was full of telling me what the eu was making the irish do, all the rules and regulations, i asked which was best, regulations or a battered economy, i got no answer

flutered

joeysoap wrote: »

I understand UK nationals reasons for applying for Irish passports,

I don't understand our reason for issuing them.

If half the UK carry EU passports why would they bother wanting to remain?

they voted to remain, brexit may well split the family, as its probably one will have to move overseas, something no one has mentioned yet

Jim2007

View wrote: »

The other EEA governments have no incentive to aid the UK in discriminating against THEIR citizens while simultaneously giving the UK all the benefits of EEA membership.

What the U.K. tend to forget is that it is not just about them.. If the EU give additional concessions to the U.K. then every other third country will expect the same concessions.

For instance the EU has a bilateral agreement with Switzerland where by they both agree that the priority for work permits is EU/EEA/CH and then all others. That treaty is then the basis for further agreements with other third countries such as the US, Canada etc on when their citizens can obtain permanent residence status in Switzerland and move throughout the block and so on... Granting the U.K. some kind of special status as a third country would kick off another set of issues...

Enzokk

Billy86 wrote: »

That's actually largely how they got Brexit.

Maybe, then again the reason we got the referendum is because the leader of the Tories didn't have the balls to stand up to the euroskeptic wing of his own party. If he had actually done what he thought was right there should have been no referendum. It seems most agree the sensible course of action is to stay as close to the EU as possible because it makes financial sense, the way the UK economy is set-up. Labour seems to be hedging their bets on the rational choice, not gamble what their own beliefs were.

Jim2007

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think every single one of the EU 27 would be very happy to see Britain adopt the EFTA model.

Except the current EFTA membership may not agree! Admitting the U.K. would seriously upset the balance of power and if you were a member, would seriously want to deal with all the we're special we want an opt out etc...

breatheme

And then you could argue, "if you want this opt-out, you're out of the EFTA." Once that happens, back to the drawing board!

I really think they need a Brexit of the harder kind (not the hardest kind, mind you, I don't want to see Britain burn). And the EU needs one too, in a way.

breatheme

And then you could argue, "if you want this opt-out, you're out of the EFTA." Once that happens, back to the drawing board!

I really think they need a Brexit of the harder kind (not the hardest kind, mind you, I don't want to see Britain burn). And the EU needs one too, in a way.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

As expected the EU Withdrawal Bill passed its second reading comfortably last night with 326 to 290 votes in the Commons.

It'll be back after the committee stage in October with various amendments tabled so it's by no means done. One can expect ping pong with the House of Lords. But it's an important signal. 7 Labour MPs (the typical mostly) voted for the legislation and it looks like some abstained also.

This is a good test as to how difficult it will be for the Government to get the Brexit legislation through the house. My view would be not very.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As expected the EU Withdrawal Bill passed it's second reading comfortably last night with 326 to 290 votes in the Commons.

It'll be back after the committee stage in October with various amendments tabled so it's by no means done. One can expect ping pong with the House of Lords. But it's an important signal. 7 Labour MPs (the typical mostly) voted for the legislation and it looks like some abstained also.

This is a good test as to how difficult it will be for the Government to get the Brexit legislation through the house. My view would be not very.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I think the government will be pleased with this outcome.

It's not over yet. The second-reading vote is an in-principle approval; the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill comes later. Eight sitting days have been set aside for this (which is a lot; two half-days is the norm for most Bills). So, plenty of scope for rí-rá agus ruaile-buaile yet.

But increasingly the argument is focussing on the so-called Henry VIII powers, and the division here is over whether legislative authority taken back from the Union should be vested in Ministers, or in Parliament. Even to frame the argument in those terms is to accept that Brexit is going to happen, and there's plenty of room for the government to make concessions on this issue without affecting the fundamentals of Brexit.

A bigger problem for the government will be the amendment that somebody will certainly put down providing for a public vote on the terms of the Brexit deal, once negotiated. Opinion polls suggest that this is popular with the public, and arguments from insiders explaining out that it's pointless don't seem to find much traction. Remainers who understand that it's pointless may nevertheless still support it as a spoiling tactic, and/or in the hope of embarrassing the government. A government with a majority as precarious as the present one is generally very easy to embarrass.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the government will be pleased with this outcome.

It's not over yet. The second-reading vote is an in-principle approval; the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill comes later. Eight sitting days have been set aside for this (which is a lot; two half-days is the norm for most Bills). So, plenty of scope for rí-rá agus ruaile-buaile yet.

But increasingly the argument is focussing on the so-called Henry VIII powers, and the division here is over whether legislative authority taken back from the Union should be vested in Ministers, or in Parliament. Even to frame the argument in those terms is to accept that Brexit is going to happen, and there's plenty of room for the government to make concessions on this issue without affecting the fundamentals of Brexit.

A bigger problem for the government will be the amendment that somebody will certainly put down providing for a public vote on the terms of the Brexit deal, once negotiated. Opinion polls suggest that this is popular with the public, and arguments from insiders explaining out that it's pointless don't seem to find much traction. Remainers who understand that it's pointless may nevertheless still support it as a spoiling tactic, and/or in the hope of embarrassing the government. A government with a majority as precarious as the present one is generally very easy to embarrass.

Good morning!

I'm personally in agreement with the principle of moderating the Henry VIII powers in the bill. It seems like a lot of Conservative MPs are as well judging by the chatter last night. I'd expect most of the amendments to chip away at these powers.

I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this. There's a lot of people who just want the parliamentarians to act on the outcome of the referendum. Any vote at the end would be simply accept the deal or reject the deal. There's no assurance that the EU would accept a stay or leave vote again.

I reckon the typical "stay in the single market and customs union" amendment will be attempted and voted down yet again like it was during the Article 50 vote.

The only amendments I can see actually succeeding are those which are about parliamentary procedure and I think those are genuinely very important.

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

Yes, the election was a disastrous result for the Conservatives but I'm pretty confident that the legislative agenda for Brexit will make it through parliament. The Tories are looking unbelievably united in comparison to the opposition benches at the moment.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

People just want Brexit to be done and dusted. That includes a lot of remain voters.

It includes most of Europe at this stage, too.

Personally, I would prefer not to see the UK do this to themselves, even at this late stage. Partly because they will hurt us in the process of harming themselves, but mainly because it is going to be very painful for them, our neighbours.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this . . .

I think it depends on the question you ask.

If you ask people if they want a rerun of the Brexit referendum, the answer is 'no'. Even those who opposed Brexit in the last referendum accept the outcome, and don't want to fight the battle again. (Or, at least, enough of them take that view to give "no rerun of the Brexit referendum" a clear majority).

But if you ask people if they would like a vote on the Brexit deal, when negotiated, the majority answer is 'yes'. Rightly or wrongly, they don't see this a rerun of the Brexit referendum. The question at this referendum would not be "should the UK leave the EU?", but "should the UK leave the EU on these terms?"

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

It seems like the Government have more buffer than they feared but, honestly, their position is still very weak. They're a minority government, dependent on the DUP for support, and the only thing that's rock solid about the DUP is what's between their ears. The bookies are favouring 2018 for the next election, and Teresa May is publicly proclaiming her expectation that she will lead her party into the next election, which is not something a sitting prime minister should ever have to say out loud. It all looks quite shaky.

My point is that the progress of the Brexit legislation is threatened from two directions. One is the substantial group within the Tory party who are unhappy about Brexit, and particularly unhappy about the hard Brexit that May is targetting. The referendum result binds them to Brexit but not necessarily to hard Brexit. The other is the substantial group within the Tory party who want shot of May, and on to a new leader who can hopefully do something to revive the party's electoral fortunes. A defeat for the government on the Brexit strategy identified with her would likely bring about a change of leadership in the party. And of course the Labour MPs who voted with the government at second reading can't be relied upon to do so in Committee.

So, yeah, don't count your chickens before they hatch.

oppenheimer1

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

So this was a big win now for the brexiteers last night. Though had the bill failed the UK would most certainly have been gearing up for another election. The threat of an election and deselection is a powerful motivator for any cause.

Peregrinus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

Yes, there'd be a big issue here, because we have a constitutional separation of powers, and the courts interpret the Consitution as limiting the degree of legislative power which the Oireachtas can delegate to the government.

Having said that, we joined the EU by way of Constitutional amendment, and to leave it would require another constitutional amendment. If the government of the day felt that some reallocation of legislative powers was was necessary to make Irexit possible or practicable, they could deal with that reallocation in the referendum.

There's no possibility that a constitutional referendum on Irexit could be conducted in such a catastrophically incompetent fashion as the UK referendum was. Under the Irish system, a proposal for how to leave the EU would have to be developed before the referendum, so that the government could work out what constitutional provisions would be needed to implement the exit, so that all that would be put before the people at the referendum; they wouldn't get to find out about it afterwards.

Jim2007

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm wondering would a bill like that be able to get through the Dail? Surely because of the powers it confers, it would be unconstitutional?

You have already answered the question! You recognise the importance of the constitution and it's supremacy over parliament etc... This is the kind of thinking that is absent among voters the UK.

Voters in Ireland and Switzerland (where I live) have grown up dealing with these kinds of issues and have developed a different toolset to make the decisions. They ask a different set of questions and have a different expectations about the kind of information they expect to receive. It is not a coincidence that both countries have a requirement for the provision of independent information on referenda etc...

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm personally in agreement with the principle of moderating the Henry VIII powers in the bill. It seems like a lot of Conservative MPs are as well judging by the chatter last night. I'd expect most of the amendments to chip away at these powers.

I'm absolutely disgusted that the Henry VIII powers are even in consideration and if a consideration for being in favour of Brexit was "getting back power" and "sovereignty", the only way to describe the inclusion of the Henry VIII powergrab is as total and utter treason against parliament. Brexit, or no Brexit, that reflects appallingly on the Tory party and they should be tossed out for that.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not convinced of the case of another referendum. On the polls that I've seen only a third of the public support this. There's a lot of people who just want the parliamentarians to act on the outcome of the referendum. Any vote at the end would be simply accept the deal or reject the deal. There's no assurance that the EU would accept a stay or leave vote again.

Discussions on another referendum are based in complete and utter delusion. Any referendum, absent negotiations with the EU to agree it, does not stop Brexit. It is the different between completely and totally and utterly stupid Brexit and somewhat mitigated less stupid Brexit. It doesn't prevent Brexit because the Article 50 notification has already been made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I reckon the typical "stay in the single market and customs union" amendment will be attempted and voted down yet again like it was during the Article 50 vote.

I imagine you're right, mainly because the UK parliamentarians have already, in not throwing out this bill because of the Henry VIII provisions, demonstrated that they are not dealing with this effectively.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The only amendments I can see actually succeeding are those which are about parliamentary procedure and I think those are genuinely very important.

These amendments should not be necessary and unlike you, I fear they won't succeed. Both Labour and the Tories might quite like not having to consult Parliament to get legislation through.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It seems like the Government have more buffer than we thought. If the 7 Labour MPs or even some of them stay on side that gives additional insulation to the Government even if Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan vote against the Government. The DUP are proving to be rock solid support for the Conservatives.

Cowards, those Labour MPs. I hope they are severely punished by their constituents when the time comes.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, the election was a disastrous result for the Conservatives but I'm pretty confident that the legislative agenda for Brexit will make it through parliament. The Tories are looking unbelievably united in comparison to the opposition benches at the moment.

The fact that they look united does not mean that their policy is correct or that they are doing the right thing. I'd argue that in fact, they are engaging in an incredible power grab from parliament in a country which is a parliamentary representative democracy, the ramifications of which will echo through years, Brexit or no Brexit.

I feel very sorry for the average British person. I know it can be argued that some of them/ enough of them clearly voted for this mess but it is deeply cynical what the Tories are doing with this bill.

Whether you are for or against Brexit, you should be deeply disturbed that the Henry VIII provisions even got as far as being considered never mind being included. I would not be naive enough to assume they will get amended out. They should have been rejected on principle.

Zubeneschamali

Calina wrote: »

Whether you are for or against Brexit, you should be deeply disturbed that the Henry VIII provisions even got as far as being considered never mind being included.

Tie those powers to May's long-standing drive to get out from under the International Courts, and protections for a UK citizen from their Government could be severely weakened after Brexit.