Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

bilston

Lady Hermon (Independent Unionist MP) just put the DUP in their place in the HoC by eloquently pointing out they in no way represent the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Alas she is only one MP, but we need to hear a lot more from her.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. Don't dump links here please.

Enzokk

maximoose wrote: »

Yep, it'll be out tomorrow

I guess it depends if they want MPs to see the advice or not. Nowhere does it say that they will publish it, only that they will respond to finding of contempt. They surely would have more plans to delay the publication if they are determined not to have it published.

All other comments on it so far seems to be that the government cannot delay much longer but no action to make them publish it either.

cml387

Since the Grieve amendment was passed, there is a path for the PM to win the vote.
If the Brexiteers vote no and the house vote on a way forward, they loose the possibility of a no deal.

Therefore the agreement as it stands is the best worst option.

Meanwhile Corbyn is on his feet, once again confusing everybody.

Enzokk

As for the debate on the Withdrawal Agreement, it seems to me that Theresa May is back to being in dream land. They will leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ, they will not be paying exorbitant amounts to the EU, they will end free movement of people. The deal is not brilliant but it is a good deal that has something for everyone.

On a second referendum, it will only prolong the debate on the EU and the UK in the EU. But I don't see how taking her deal makes it go away.

10000maniacs

cml387 wrote: »

Since the Grieve amendment was passed, there is a path for the PM to win the vote.
If the Brexiteers vote no and the house vote on a way forward, they loose the possibility of a no deal.

Therefore the agreement as it stands is the best worst option.

Meanwhile Corbyn is on his feet, once again confusing everybody.

I think the Grieve amendment makes the no-Brexit scenario more likely.

devnull

Corbyn is completely clueless, can someone explain to me what he actually wants?

It seems to be that he believes he will make his own idea of what Brexit should be like and the EU will just go along with it?

He's really not living in the real world, a proper opposition would have buried this laughable Tory party ages ago.

tuxy

It looks like the confidence and supply agreement is now broken with the DUP and this is how the vote for Mays deal will go unless she can somehow get them back on side. Not sure how the Tories can continue in power from here.

Nody

devnull wrote: »

Corbyn is completely clueless, can someone explain to me what he actually wants?

It seems to be that he believes he will make his own idea of what Brexit should be like and the EU will just go along with it?

He's really not living in the real world, a proper opposition would have buried this laughable Tory party ages ago.

Pretty much yes; take your deluded hardcore Brexiteer and replace crisis capitalism with 50s social state owning all major utilities etc. and you're pretty much there.

Seth Brundle

tuxy wrote: »

It looks like the confidence and supply agreement is now broken with the DUP and this is how the vote for Mays deal will go unless she can somehow get them back on side. Not sure how the Tories can continue in power from here.

...but the alternative to vote for Mays agreement is to side with SF loving Corbyn.
They're in a pickle!

theguzman

Nody wrote: »

Pretty much yes; take your deluded hardcore Brexiteer and replace crisis capitalism with 50s social state owning all major utilities etc. and you're pretty much there.

Whatever about Brexit etc. the UK will really be catastrophic trouble if Corbyn gets his hands on power, in the US there was an entire system dedicated to ensuring people like Corbyn never got anywhere near political power.

cml387

10000maniacs wrote: »

I think the Grieve amendment makes the no-Brexit scenario more likely.

Don't see that. If the commons have a say in the post-rejection scenario, a crash out scenario will be voted down by a majority.

Fann Linn

theguzman wrote: »

Whatever about Brexit etc. the UK will really be catastrophic trouble if Corbyn gets his hands on power, in the US there was an entire system dedicated to ensuring people like Corbyn never got anywhere near political power.

And to think they did this themselves. Marvellous just watching them tear each other apart.

An Ciarraioch

cml387 wrote: »

10000maniacs wrote: »

I think the Grieve amendment makes the no-Brexit scenario more likely.

Don't see that. If the commons have a say in the post-rejection scenario, a crash out scenario will be voted down by a majority.

Which is what he said.

ancapailldorcha

Looks like the BBC have cancelled the Brexit debate:

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1069985007459069954

Can't see it achieving much anyway.

Nody

cml387 wrote: »

Don't see that. If the commons have a say in the post-rejection scenario, a crash out scenario will be voted down by a majority.

They can vote for no crash out all they want but there are three options on the table only:

1) May's deal - Will be voted down
2) Vote to reject A50 and somehow get May/Corbyn to do it - Not going to happen
3) Vote for May to go back and negotiate a new deal which will not happen

Then on March 29th hit and they crash out because they can't organize themselves enough to get drunk in a brewery. Crash out is the default option if nothing else gets through parliament and only option 1 stops that which they already rejected as an option. Hence they need to somehow strong arm May to hold an election (why would she?) or a new referendum (which DUP and Tories would block along with enough hardcore Corbinites) which basically leaves crash out basically. May is running scared but there is no scenario I see her going for a new election (she'd lose her PM position in the GE), a new referendum (she's to afraid of getting kicked out by her party) and since her overarching goal beyond all else is to remain PM she'll do exactly nothing and crash out to stay in the chair for as long as possible.

10000maniacs

cml387 wrote: »

Don't see that. If the commons have a say in the post-rejection scenario, a crash out scenario will be voted down by a majority.

We all agree that the crash out will be voted down, but what then?
The commons can then argue for amendments to May's deal, withdrawal of article 50 (no-Brexit) or a people vote.

cml387

Well I've been watching the debate on BBC Parliament and I have to say that TM was very impressive, particularly as she emphasised that without the backstop, there would be no deal.

As for Corbyn, he wants to move the debate onto everything except the motion up for debate. It's just pathetic.

By the way, it's interesting to note that Irish affairs haven't had such a fundamental affect on British constitutional affairs since the Home Rule debates.

devnull

10000maniacs wrote: »

We all agree that the crash out will be voted down, but what then?
The commons can then argue for amendments to May's deal, withdrawal of article 50 (no-Brexit) or a people vote.

You cannot vote down crashing out.

Crashing out happens automatically if you don't have any other arrangement.

10000maniacs

devnull wrote: »

You cannot vote down crashing out.

Crashing out happens automatically if you don't have any other arrangement.

You know what I meant. Crashing out is a valid outcome that can be voted upon.

Professor Moriarty

In other news, Nige has left UKIP. Ironically, it has become too racist for him.

Larbre34

So, we all agree there is no majority for anything.

Do we agree that crash out is the default consequence? After all, an extension to Article 50 must be requested and that has no majority, especially as Brussels will not contemplate renegotiation.

Water John

BJ speaking in HoC ATM. Very poor performance. Ken Clarke points out how deluded he is.

10000maniacs

Larbre34 wrote: »

So, we all agree there is no majority for anything.

Do we agree that crash out is the default consequence? After all, an extension to Article 50 must be requested and that has no majority, especially as Brussels will not contemplate renegotiation.

Not quite, Grieve's vote has handed power from May to Parliament on Brexit. There is no government position that matters anymore on Brexit. That's why I say no-Brexit is the most likely outcome.

BonnieSituation

theguzman wrote: »

Whatever about Brexit etc. the UK will really be catastrophic trouble if Corbyn gets his hands on power, in the US there was an entire system dedicated to ensuring people like Corbyn never got anywhere near political power.

Whatever about the jokeshop that is the UK political system it's almost infinitely superior to the sham in the States.

Welcome back though. Your contrarian views will be most welcome.

Econ__

devnull wrote: »

You cannot vote down crashing out.

Crashing out happens automatically if you don't have any other arrangement.

Larbre34 wrote: »

So, we all agree there is no majority for anything.

Do we agree that crash out is the default consequence? After all, an extension to Article 50 must be requested and that has no majority, especially as Brussels will not contemplate renegotiation.

Lads, why don't you just try to think this through for a second.

Worst case scenario: It's the 15th of March and the Commons is deadlocked, and cannot decide upon a way forward.

There is a deal already negotiated and sitting on the table. In what world do MPs, after realising that a consensus on an alternative course of action has failed to materialise, actively choose to walk off the cliff instead of demanding that they vote again on the already negotiated deal?

No such world exists. The fact that no deal is the default outcome is nothing more than a theoretical footnote.

Nody

Econ__ wrote: »

Lads, why don't you just try to think this through for a second.

Worst case scenario: It's the 15th of March and the Commons is deadlocked, and cannot decide upon a way forward.

There is a deal already negotiated and sitting on the table. In what world do MPs, after realising that a consensus on an alternative course of action has failed to materialise, actively choose to walk off the cliff instead of demanding that they vote again on the already negotiated deal?

No such world exists. The fact that no deal is the default outcome is nothing more than a theoretical footnote.

There's no difference between today or 15th March and chances of that deal getting voted through then is about as similar as now. You only need to see how every single person basically bends under the party whip no matter how strong their objections are esp. if they can use it to blame the other side (i.e. Corbyn wanting to use the Brexit crash out to get into government and get a new deal that's everything they dream off). Secondly and this is the part you (along with the UK parliament appear to miss) voting through the deal on the 15th is still leading to a crash out because there's simply not enough time to run it through all relevant parliaments etc. in EU and May asking for more time is about as likely as her resigning or withdrawing A50. The deal needs to pass now or there is simply not enough time to get it approved; and if it's not approved you can take a wild guess on what's the alternative is.

MrMusician18

Infini wrote: »

It certainly is possible even more that being able to rescind A50 is actually an option now by the looks of things. The refererendum was ultimately advisory they arent compelled to Brexit as the result could very well be argued as a deadlock.

The result wasnt an overwhelming one with less than 2% majority in favour of leave and thats only out of those who did vote. Take into account the russian troll factor, blatent lies of the campaign, cheating and dodgy spending of the leave campaign amongst others and the fact that 2 1/2 years of this results in a WA most cannot agree to and the economic costs and Parliment can very well direct the UK government to cancel brexit and revoke A50 based on the above and because Brexit simply cannot be delivered without either giving up control (not taking it back) or suffering drastic economic damage.

The problems the UK have are their own homegrown ones not the EU's and they cant keep blaming others for their own failures. They need to bite the bullet on this and end this charade its either stay in the EU with control, leave and give up control with no say or crash and wreck their own country. The choice is obvious to us but its up to them to cop on and make the best one.

Sigh... We've been over this ground, maybe a thousand times since the first Brexit thread. Yes the referendum was advisory but that's only because parliament is sovereign and all referendums are ultimately advisory in the UK.

Politically, the referendum was binding, therefore the result has to be implemented (in some fashion) or overturned by popular vote.

The vote cannot be ignored.

Water John

Sky News saying BJ's contribution to the debate didn't go down well in the HoC's.
Basically, BJ was saying we go back to the EU, basically with threats, and be ready to Crash out.

lawred2

cml387 wrote: »

Well I've been watching the debate on BBC Parliament and I have to say that TM was very impressive, particularly as she emphasised that without the backstop, there would be no deal.

As for Corbyn, he wants to move the debate onto everything except the motion up for debate. It's just pathetic.

By the way, it's interesting to note that Irish affairs haven't had such a fundamental affect on British constitutional affairs since the Home Rule debates.

Yeah but back then, whatever the problem was, even after earnest discussions at great length, when something was in the balance they could ultimately just choose the well trodden path of shafting the Irish..

That's not as available to them now as it once was