Brexit discussion thread III

Water John

May hasn't backed down on the Grieve amendment. Davis says they will allow a vote soon after March 19th and it not acceptable.
They will do further damage if they don't accede. Sooner or later a chunk of anti Brexiteer Tories will yell, stop.
May has to keep, her own coalition together by acceding reasonable demands.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of course it is. It will be awkward for anyone with a country so evenly split and without a definitive mandate. But that's not Labour's fault per se. It's Cameron's plus UKIP, Tory Eurosceptics and a few Labour MPs who put forward a campaign based on lies. A campaign they had no intention of winning.

No arguments there.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Labour's problem is that they are not ideologically unified as a party which then creates their Brexit ambiguity. Best thing that could happen British politics is if Brexit forces the disintegration of the Tories and Labour and their realignment into Right, Centre Right, Centre Left, Left. Where that would leave the Lib Dems is anyone's guess. Maybe they could assimilate centrist Tory and Labour MPs. However, it may take a very damaging Brexit to create the circumstances for a realignment.

Right but if they win which isn't unlikely, they'll have to confront this and resolve it or they'll end up doing what David Cameron did, taking a ludicrous gamble to satisfy his fanatics and look how that ended.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm talking about a senior Labour Europhile, not the party as a whole.

This is Westminster politics. Starmer is in the shadow cabinet and has to remain loyal to Corbyn. He's not a back bencher. Corbyn tends to be rather swift about getting rid of those who oppose him.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most them are remainers and most don't approve of Jeremy Corbyn.

So what? They tried to get rid of him once. They aren't going to try that again in a hurry. Corbyn is popular with Labour party members. The last election bolstered his standing.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I want a referendum on the final deal to put this nonsense to bed and, yes I am a registered Liberal Democrat so I know which party actually backs giving the electorate the agency to sign off on Brexit. The best deal in my opinion is the Norway option and that's what I'm hoping for.

You're not looking to "sign off" on Brexit. You want to stop Brexit. You've got a lot of campaigning to do for that end.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ellian

solodeogloria wrote: »

In the general election Labour ran on a manifesto that supported leaving the customs union and the single market.

Where did it say that in the manifesto? I just had a look at it, and the only reference I could find to either was

We will scrap the Conservatives’
Brexit White Paper and replace it
with fresh negotiating priorities that
have a strong emphasis on retaining
the benefits of the Single 0arket
and the Customs Union – which
are essential for maintaining
industries, jobs and businesses in
Britain. Labour will always put jobs
and the economy first.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No arguments there.



Right but if they win which isn't unlikely, they'll have to confront this and resolve it or they'll end up doing what David Cameron did, taking a ludicrous gamble to satisfy his fanatics and look how that ended.

I think it's a question of timing. If/when the Tory government falls, the Tories will probably be in disarray so Labour will have a relatively easy win. The prevailing mood of the country at that time regarding Brexit will should dictate policy. All they have to do is present a relatively united front and build their manifesto around what the people want rather than hard ideology. It remains to be seen if Corbyn and Momentum can be that pragmatic. Assuming that people will have voted for Labour on the basis that they want a soft Brexit, and that they are pragmatic and that Brexit hasn't already happened, I would imagine that the EU would be very accommodating.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

So what? They tried to get rid of him once. They aren't going to try that again in a hurry. Corbyn is popular with Labour party members. The last election bolstered his standing.

Only because of a surprisingly good election result. If they think they can pull off a coup, they'll try again.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You're not looking to "sign off" on Brexit. You want to stop Brexit. You've got a lot of campaigning to do for that end.

Personally, yes. But the public should be able to appraise the final deal and approve or reject it in favour of full EU membership or leaving with no deal.

listermint

Very easy for Corybn to come out in the new year and talk about the down turn in projections and Sterling and amp up the 'nobody voted for this sort of outcome, labour can change this' It would be the easiest part to follow and you could tear apart an already in disarray conservative party.

flaneur

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Whatever happens in the UK, looks like we'll have some insulation here against the eventual Brexit outcome, judging by the 4% growth prediction for 2018:

https://www.rte.ie/news/economy/2017/1213/927015-esri/

I'm loathed to rely on any of those predications. There are just too many variables. My own sense is that we are underestimating the amount of non-financial services companies that may opt to go to Ireland to create EU hubs.

There are a lot of British companies and even SMEs that will need a foot in the EU and Ireland's by far the least scary option for a move - similar legal system, similar contract law, same language, familiar taxation and accounting systems and very near by. It's not all about the banks, there's a whole other economy there too.

On the swing side of it, we have no idea how this may impact Irish companies with big exposure to the UK and that's kind of a mixture of some service sector stuff and agri-food. Personally, I don't think it's going to be worst case scenario stuff. I suspect there'll be a fudge and I also don't think you'll see supply chains jumping to new sources all that quickly either. The businesses most at risk are in the generic food sectors i.e. stuff like cheddar cheese and it shows that Ireland's still in dire need to build better global brands.

For example, how the hell don't we have a massive international baby food brand at this stage? It's a blatantly obvious sector we should be all over.

If Ireland wants to protect against future shocks, we need to be developing really strong food brands and adding a lot more value here. The notion that we should be producing huge quantities of generic dairy and meat is just beyond stupid. We've a possibility of branding Ireland as the go-to place for all things organic, green and super high quality and a lot of farmers simply aren't getting that.

Lower volume, higher value added means lower risks should anything change i.e. Brexit or anything else. It also reduces our environmental burden, cuts CO2 output, secures farm incomes and pretty much does everything you could possibly do to build a strong rural economy. Yet, all we seem to have is people wanting to continue doing live exports to the middle east and selling unbranded milk powder. Mind bloggling at times!

The state's been doing its best with stuff like Origin Green and all sorts of stuff, but it always seems to be an uphill battle with nobody listening.

Maybe, just maybe, Brexit will finally shock us out of complacency in agriculture.

Enzokk

Ellian wrote: »

Where did it say that in the manifesto? I just had a look at it, and the only reference I could find to either was

We will scrap the Conservatives’
Brexit White Paper and replace it
with fresh negotiating priorities that
have a strong emphasis on retaining
the benefits of the Single 0arket
and the Customs Union – which
are essential for maintaining
industries, jobs and businesses in
Britain. Labour will always put jobs
and the economy first.

Labour and Jeremy Corbyn cannot win in some people's eyes. They have already said what they want, they want a close relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union. This is no different than the Conservatives position. What Labour hasn't done is draw stupid red lines that make those objectives impossible to achieve without ignoring those same red lines.

Also, you know as soon as Labour proposes to stay in the EU the press and their detractors, whether they were for Leave or Remain, will hammer Labour for ignoring the result if the referendum and thus the people.

Water John

Vote around 7pm on Grieve Amendment.

ancapailldorcha

listermint wrote: »

Very easy for Corybn to come out in the new year and talk about the down turn in projections and Sterling and amp up the 'nobody voted for this sort of outcome, labour can change this' It would be the easiest part to follow and you could tear apart an already in disarray conservative party.

He's had an open goal for some time now and has made absolutely nothing of it. I see no reason for him to change tack now.

Water John

The best politically, Corbyn can do ATM is stay relatively quiet and let the Tories tear into each other.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

The best politically, Corbyn can do ATM is stay relatively quiet and let the Tories tear into each other.

To be fair, that's a strategy which is likely to pay dividends. The problem is that it is a short term solution and does nothing to resolve the inner conflict within the party which is every bit as divided as the Conservatives. Professor Moriarty suggests that both parties splitting would be good but in an FPTP system this would just hand electoral victory to the side which resisted disintegration so there is a very strong disincentive to do this. I'd like to see a PR system introduced but Jeremy Corbyn isn't daft enough to bite the hand that feeds.

Ellian

Enzokk wrote: »

Labour and Jeremy Corbyn cannot win in some people's eyes. They have already said what they want, they want a close relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union. This is no different than the Conservatives position. What Labour hasn't done is draw stupid red lines that make those objectives impossible to achieve without ignoring those same red lines.

Also, you know as soon as Labour proposes to stay in the EU the press and their detractors, whether they were for Leave or Remain, will hammer Labour for ignoring the result if the referendum and thus the people.

I get that - I was just asking Solo where his assertion that Labour campaigned on a manifesto of leaving the SM and the CU came from, as I could not find it in the actual manifesto.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Labour and Jeremy Corbyn cannot win in some people's eyes. They have already said what they want, they want a close relationship with the Single Market and Customs Union. This is no different than the Conservatives position. What Labour hasn't done is draw stupid red lines that make those objectives impossible to achieve without ignoring those same red lines.

Also, you know as soon as Labour proposes to stay in the EU the press and their detractors, whether they were for Leave or Remain, will hammer Labour for ignoring the result if the referendum and thus the people.

They won't get hammered if the Tories have imploded and the mood of the country is against a hard Brexit. All they have to do is put the terms of a soft Brexit in their manifesto. If elected they can point to the manifesto and rightly claim to be carrying out the will of the people.

Enzokk

Ellian wrote: »

I get that - I was just asking Solo where his assertion that Labour campaigned on a manifesto of leaving the SM and the CU came from, as I could not find it in the actual manifesto.

I never looked at either party's manifesto so it was great for you to link to the Labour one and what it said. It was a criticism laid at Labour that they didn't have a detailed proposal for Brexit, but then again the previous election was much more about domestic policies than Brexit. The next one will also be about what happens to people at home as well I think so having a detailed proposal for Brexit that will only get hammered, as its such a divisive issue in the UK, will only hurt a party. People are more concerned about the NHS than Brexit that should be handled in the short term.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They won't get hammered if the Tories have imploded and the mood of the country is against a hard Brexit. All they have to do is put the terms of a soft Brexit in their manifesto. If elected they can point to the manifesto and rightly claim to be carrying out the will of the people.

Agreed, there is no incentive for Labour to force an election while the Brexit disaster continues. The Tories are busy aiming the gun at their own head so why stop them? Why risk taking ownership of the same gun and start playing with it when they never wanted it in the first place.

Itssoeasy

Just watching the House of Commons live and it's hardly a good sign when it seems on such a knife edge.

Itssoeasy

Theresa May has lost a vote in the House of Commons by four votes.

demfad

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Theresa May has lost a vote in the House of Commons by four votes.

Think, thats an amendment that allows a meaningful vote for parliament on final Brexit deal. This could be big if it means vote now between 'deal' or 'remain'.

Edit: Amendment 7.

MPs have legal guarantee of vote on final deal (rather than verbal one from David Davis). Amendments can be tabled to it (could be changed to accept deal or remain I guess to avoid cliff edge)

Water John

Makes you wonder as to why, the Govn't didn't give way.
These were legal heavyweights. Should have been listened to. No more fear of MPs voting down the PM.

An Ciarraioch

Yes, 309-305. The tightness of the vote again raises the question of whether SF should take their seats purely for votes concerning Brexit, given that this will hardly be the last motion provoking rebellions?

demfad

demfad wrote: »

Think, thats an amendment that allows a meaningful vote for parliament on final Brexit deal. This could be big if it means vote now between 'deal' or 'remain'.

Edit: Amendment 7.

MPs have legal guarantee of vote on final deal (rather than verbal one from David Davis). Amendments can be tabled to it (could be changed to accept deal or remain I guess to avoid cliff edge)

Choices are now:1) Leave with a deal, 2) leave without a deal or 3) Remain/renegotiate without a deal if Commons bars (via amendment) UK from leaving without a deal. These are the possibilities and this is significant.

UK Parliament is finally taking back control. Good to see.

Nody

demfad wrote: »

Choices are now:1) Leave with a deal, 2) leave without a deal or 3) Remain/renegotiate without a deal if Commons bars (via amendment) UK from leaving without a deal. These are the possibilities and this is significant.

UK Parliament is finally taking back control. Good to see.

Option 3 is only possible if EU decides to play ball; if not UK is out without a deal as the 2 year timer on article 50 has expired.

An Ciarraioch

Faisal Islam publishes the list of the dozen Tory rebels:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/941028823746957313

FrancieBrady

Internationally embarrassed by the DUP, undermined by her Brexit Minister and now cannot get a vote by in the house.

How much longer will the charade continue?

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Option 3 is only possible if EU decides to play ball; if not UK is out without a deal as the 2 year timer on article 50 has expired.

EU has already said publicly and privately that it can be revoked. The legal opinion is that if the revocation was in good faith, the EU would not be able to ignore it. in 'Bad Faith' would be a as a negotiating tactic or to stall for time.

I guess it will be covered soon enough now.

demfad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Internationally embarrassed by the DUP, undermined by her Brexit Minister and now cannot get a vote by in the house.

How much longer will the charade continue?

I remember a Sligo anarchist pleading to leave Fianna Fail in power after the great crash. 'I think they are doing a wonderful job!'.
For the same half-serious reasons I think Theresa May is doing a wonderful job.
If her charade delivers the end I want I wont be complaining about the means.

Another point to remember is that this will strenghten the UKs negotiating position somewhat. They have more to threaten now than blowing their own head off if they dont get the deal they want.

Nody

demfad wrote: »

EU has already said publicly and privately that it can be revoked. The legal opinion is that if the revocation was in good faith, the EU would not be able to ignore it. in 'Bad Faith' would be a as a negotiating tactic or to stall for time.

I guess it will be covered soon enough now.

Reverse A50 is not the same as renegotiate an agreed deal because the UK parliament decides it's not a good enough deal and votes it down.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

Reverse A50 is not the same as renegotiate an agreed deal because the UK parliament decides it's not a good enough deal and votes it down.

It's up to the UK parliament what amendment it wants to make. It could simply be to revoke A50 if they are out of time.
The legal position will be clearer then: If the reason for revocation is renegotiation it might not be acceptable to ECJ.
If the vote is to be meaningful the legal reality of being dumped out of the EU after 2 years must be averted if the vote is defeated. That means A50 would have to be revoked and presumably they would know exactly how to do thsi legally come the time.

Only 3 choices:

1) Leave with deal
2) Leave with no deal
3) Remain (temp or permanently).

If today's majority holds the vote will likely be between 1) and 2) or between 1) and 3) come next year.

An order to renegotiate the deal is meaningless if the UK automatically dumps out due to the clock. No point in voting for that. Same result as leaving with no deal.
Only A50 revocation would be meaningful.

devnull

One of the rebels it's being reported may have been sacked by the Tory party as their vice chairman.

In addition two Labour MPs voted with the government, Hoey and Field. Corbyn says that it's a humiliating defeat for the government.

Perhaps the biggest day since the UK voted to leave in some respects, no doubt the leavers will say it's not democracy.

Hoey is a bizarre 'Labour' voice.

Truly.

ancapailldorcha

Seems that the Express may even be backtracking somewhat (Source):

Patser

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Internationally embarrassed by the DUP, undermined by her Brexit Minister and now cannot get a vote by in the house.

How much longer will the charade continue?

The big problem the Tories have is who replaces her? May at least seems to act neutrally in the big Tory divide, and is savaged by both sides. But if she stepped down then an open Tory civil war would be likely, while still at a critical time of EU negotiations.

As popcorn munching entertainment it would be world class. But since Ireland stands to be 2nd biggest losers in a messy Brexit, nationally it could be disasterous. So we kind of need May to struggle on and get a deal.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems that the Express may even be backtracking somewhat (Source):

When the The Express starts telling the truth you know the game is up. Hopefully.

Water John

not at all worried about a Tory civil war. If there is a split there will be enough MPs in Parliament to ensure a soft Brexit, at the worst.
A hard rump Brexit Tory MPs, along with their 10 DUP and 2 LB friends would not command Parliament.

Nice to see Sylvia Herman vote with the amendment. No wonder the DUP hate her, a sane voice.

recedite

flaneur wrote: »

My point however about the EU vs the UK is that the EU bases itself on facts and documents. The UK bases itself on politics and interpretation of ambiguous precedents and language.
Political waffle vs logic. Logic will win.

Fair point in some ways, but....
The British system is flexible and adaptable. Think of the bamboo and the big tree; which survives a storm better?
An unwritten constitution is based on facts, but the facts (the precedent) are open to modification and improvement in any given new situation.
Over the centuries the UK has survived the chaos, wars and revolutions that have repeatedly torn apart the less flexible continental countries. It has gradually adapted and changed from a monarchy to a liberal democracy. Gradual change, or inflexible fixed rules with occasional revolutions, which is better?

Last year we saw cracks appearing in the EU when a clear instruction that had been given regarding mandatory migrant quotas was disregarded by several member states. Now the EC President is declaring the rules "ineffective".

Tusk’s note effectively asks EU leaders to declare the policy a failure

The EU will probably have to take a more flexible and pragmatic approach to problem solving in future.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Hoey is a bizarre 'Labour' voice.

Truly.

She's a Unionist from the north with liberal views on social issues, but her staunch Unionism/British Nationalism is her guiding force. She should be thrown out of Labour or deselected (can they do that?) at the next election.

Her constituency, Vauxhall in London, is one of the most ethnically diverse in Britain with 77% of thse who voted in the Brexit referendum choosing to stay in the EU, I hope they punish her.

If Labour don't disown her at the next elections the Lib-Dems should go after her seat with vigour.

flaneur

They survived by being an easily defended island and they only just survived - Ireland left after what was basically a UK civil war.

Water John

UK Rule is being bent a lot, when they have to go back to Henry the Eight. Basically, allowing Ministers to create law without the imprematur of Parliament.
Doesn't sound very democratic.

devnull

Farage is back, he's just tweeted
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/941028309772718080

Have to laugh about it, this is the man who said that if it was very close or only a few percentage points in it, it would not be the end of the story, that was when he thought he wasn't going to win of course!

Lib Dems hit back pretty quick

https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/941045836733206529

Professor Moriarty

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

She's a Unionist from the north with liberal views on social issues, but her staunch Unionism/British Nationalism is her guiding force. She should be thrown out of Labour or deselected (can they do that?) at the next election.

Her constituency, Vauxhall in London, is one of the most ethnically diverse in Britain with 77% of thse who voted in the Brexit referendum choosing to stay in the EU, I hope they punish her.

If Labour don't disown her at the next elections the Lib-Dems should go after her seat with vigour.

That's a massive majority though.

Sam Russell

recedite wrote: »

Fair point in some ways, but....
The British system is flexible and adaptable. Think of the bamboo and the big tree; which survives a storm better?
An unwritten constitution is based on facts, but the facts (the precedent) are open to modification and improvement in any given new situation.
Over the centuries the UK has survived the chaos, wars and revolutions that have repeatedly torn apart the less flexible continental countries. It has gradually adapted and changed from a monarchy to a liberal democracy. Gradual change, or inflexible fixed rules with occasional revolutions, which is better?

Last year we saw cracks appearing in the EU when a clear instruction that had been given regarding mandatory migrant quotas was disregarded by several member states. Now the EC President is declaring the rules "ineffective".The EU will probably have to take a more flexible and pragmatic approach to problem solving in future.

I would disagree with the entirety of this.

Britain survived WWII but only by the grace of the USA, and the help of the Dominions (including India) but ended up broke. They struggled to get out of the economic problems and just struggled. It has had major economic disasters, like successive devaluations and the odd visit by the IMF and now the self inflicted disaster of Brexit.

It is only recently that their civil war between Labour and Tory subsided with the election of Tony Blair, the Labour/(Tory-Lite) PM who like Janus could look both ways at once. The dodgy dealings of the CofL (think LIBOR for example) that led to the crash of 2008 (aided by Wall St) should of course be part of the mix.

Our constitution is under continuous revision, and even today, the eighth amendment is up to be revoked/revised as voted by the Dail committee. So constitutions can be flexible and move with the times. Who would have thought Ireland could vote to legalise same sex marriage?

The EU is also flexible as it has to be to survive. When the UK wanted exemptions or opt outs, it generally got them. The EU is nothing if it is not pragmatic - but can be unforgiving (think Ireland bail out/Greek Bail out).

The UK system is open to a 'winner takes all' because of its FPTP voting system that allows a very small group to select the candidates for election, particularly in safe seats. This is dangerous for both Tory and Labour where the party can be taken over by a small cabal of extremists.

I thin the UK needs STV if it wants democracy to survive or even the UK itself. Scotland has had a taste of a non-Labour non-Tory party getting nearly all the seats. The taste of such a victory can be very heady.

recedite

Water John wrote: »

UK Rule is being bent a lot, when they have to go back to Henry the Eight. Basically, allowing Ministers to create law without the imprematur of Parliament.
Doesn't sound very democratic.

We see similar in the USA when the President signs "executive orders".
You may as well call them "royal decrees".
The UK "cabinet" has evolved to take on this function which was formerly the prerogative of the king/queen.
The tension between US president and US Congress is along the same lines as the tension between UK cabinet and parliament. Executive V Legislature.
Its not a bad thing. It prevents dictatorships. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Infini

In a general sense you can see the effect that the populist BS from Farage and that is being blown apart each day by the hard truth that is reality and facts. The longer this goes on the quicker it's gonna become apparent that the whole thing was a lie.

I personally have said it before that the UK WONT leave the EU ultimately because the referendum was won both on a knife edge and with lies. When the hard reality hits as its doing so now and the actual FACTS not BS propaganda show the real effects that come with this it shows that ultimately that leaving the EU will do NOTHING but harm for them. They stand to lose far more than they gain.

This amendment also helps in a sense that it's what the Brexiteers fear the most: common sense and fact's will ultimately undermine, destroy their arguments and leave most of the reasonable thinking people with an actual OUT and a way of ending this fiasco BEFORE it reaches the point of no return.

An Ciarraioch

Never let it be said that Guy Verhofstadt passed up the opportunity for a perceptive tweet!

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/941045396146704389

Junkyard Tom

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's a massive majority though.

If say 77% of her voters wanted to stay in the EU, LD leaflets coming through the door, at election time, reminding them that Hoey sided with Tory Brexit-extremists, will see her vote take a major hit. Labour should remove her if they want to ensure the seat stays with them.

flaneur

Executive Orders / Ministerial Orders are only intended for use to make small tweaks to legislation e.g. adjust fines or something like that.

We saw what happened in Ireland when ministerial orders had been used to amend the 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act without any debate by adding items to the list of banned substances without any Oireachtas oversight or debate.

It turned out to be unconstitutional and was struck down by the Court of Appeal.

Trump hit similar walls in the US where E.O.s were deemed unconstitutional in some cases.

There's a limit to what these kinds of orders can be reasonably used for.

Whatever about Brexit, the proposals being made to just implement tons of laws by ministerial order was absolutely ridiculous overreach by the executive.

Water John

If Hoey wants to represent the people of Antrim, she should stand for election there. She quite clearly does not represent the views and more importantly, the interests, of her present constituents.

flaneur

What's Hoey done now?

Water John

Just 1 of 2 LB MPs to vote against Grieve amendment. It was the backroom work of LB whips that brought about the adoption of the amendment. Just 2 held out.