Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Folkstonian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1070012341335572481

Predictable antagonistic drivel from the SNP as per usual.

Scotland is in an economic and political union with England because it made formal requests to be so in the early 18th century.

Scotland’s future relationship with England will be (or has been) decided by its people with a clear and unambiguous vote on the matter.

Remarkable parallels exist between Scotland’s relationship vis a vis England, and Britain’s relationship vis a vis Europe.

Both are there by their own volition, both are free to leave to the detriment of their economic growth and future prosperity should they wish to do so.

How incredibly tiresome it is to hear SNP MPs wallow in self pity and bemoan their station week after week as if they remain a far flung colony taken in the age of empire building. Scotland was the empire.

From a personal perspective, with my family home being 35 miles from France and 350 miles from Scotland, a close and productive future relationship with the former is a far more pressing concern.

If (hopefully when) Brexit is reversed, it will be because the British people desired it, not because the SNP were the saviour of England.

It would be a delicious outcome if Britain remained in the EU and resolved to block any future attempts from an independent Scotland to achieve fast tracked access. Petty.. maybe. But sure this is the thread for it!

igCorcaigh

tuxy wrote: »

It was not known if article 50 could be revoked. We now know that it can.
It would take another referendum for it to happen though.

Yes, and after today's vote on Grieve, the HoC can take control from May's government after the deal is struck down.

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

Zubeneschamali

igCorcaigh wrote: »

She's either stupid, or very very clever.

Look at her record as Home Secretary: stupid and evil.

Zubeneschamali

Hermy wrote: »

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

May has been driving the Brexit bus towards the cliff, preferring to stay in the drivers seat than admit it's madness and let someone else drive. But now the cliff is getting very close.



MPs have spent the last 2 years cheering and singing and fighting at the back of the bus, but now that they see the drop, they don't like the look of it.


So now some are looking for the Brexit Emergency Exit.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

listermint

Hermy wrote: »

I saw this mentioned in the news earlier and I don't get it.

Why would Brexit be cancelled all of a sudden?
Where's the mandate for that?

The mandate is simple the brexit that was on the table is not deliverable .

What is deliverable has no mandate.

Can't make it any simpler.

There is no mandate for brexit at all costs. None. Never was

RobMc59

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

We have a constitution.

The UK should look into one.

Calina

listermint wrote: »

We have a constitution.

The UK should look into one.

First past the post has to go.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

The failings of the UK parliament and methods of government have been exposed as seriously flawed-could something like this ever happen in Ireland?

This particular train-wreck is unlikely to unfold in Ireland. Here's why:

As we all know, the Irish Constitution was amended in 1972 to provide for Ireland to accede to (what was then) the EC Treaty, and it has been amended several times since them to provide for accession to new EU Treaties. Each amendment, of course, requires a referendum.

Strictly speaking, the amendments merely allow Ireland to accede to the Treaties; they don't require Ireland to do so. So in theory an Irish government could say, yeah, we have the power to maintain Ireland as a member of the EU, but we aren't compelled to do so, and we've decided that it's a bad idea, so we're pulling out. No need for any referendum.

But, in practice, that's unthinkable. There would have to be a referendum to provide political and constitutional cover for Ireland to leave the EU.

But here's the thing; in Ireland we don't have referendums about undefined policy ideas (Shall we leave the EU? Shall we have gay marriage? Shall we have divorce?). We have referendums to insert specific wording into the Constitution dealing with whatever it is.

And here's the other thing; constitutionally, the process is (1) the Oireachtas passes an amendment to the Constitution, and (2) the people then ratify that in a referendum. So a proposal doesn't even get put to the poeple in a referendum until it has already been considered and approved by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas decides what exact words it wishes to put in to, or take out from, the Constitution and only when they have approved a change do the people get a say.

So there is no possibility of asking the people to approve a vague concept which the Oireachtas hasn't approved even in principle, and the Oireachtas only then trying (and possibly failing) to reach some kind of agreement about what that means, and how it should be implemented, even though they don't agree with it. Which is where the UK is right now.

murphaph

It's not just the archaic and broken (FPTP, devolution-sort-of, no written constitution etc. etc.) political system that brought the UK to this point. A very large chunk of the populace simply thinks the UK is better than the silly continentals. That level of arrogance doesn't exist in Ireland. If anything we're too self doubting. You probably need a colonial history or similar to be able to foster that sort of arrogance and we don't have it, so it's hard to imagine it ever developing in our electorate.

Captain Obvious

Why are Tories still calling this the biggest ever mandate? Surely it must be among the smallest with a 4 point gap.

DOCARCH

AG's legal advice to cabinet to be published at 11.30.

WoollyRedHat

I envisage after 9 months to 1 year of a no deal scenario, the UK would be banging on the door of the EU to let them in to some extent The wolves await them when no deal happens due to the pandoniun and the short to medium term affects to businesses will be fairly brutal.n
New trade deals will take a lot of time. The average British person will suffer. The Conservatives will fall in such a scenario, and there could be public unrest if the worst comes to pass in the fallout . Weasels like JRM will flee/ disappear from the spotlight.

If it's after March 31st, the chance to remain evaporates once A51 is enacted and following any plea for mercy that is to be considered by the EU, it will give the UK a CU arrangement at best. After March 31st, presuming A51 is enacted, looking into the future if the UK decided they want to fully rejoin the EU, they would lose the pound to do so.

Peregrinus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Why are Tories still calling this the biggest ever mandate? Surely it must be among the smallest with a 4 point gap.

It's a rhetorical point. The justification for the claim is that more people voted for Brexit (17,410,742) than have ever voted for anything in the entire history of the UK.

It's not a very strong point. The counter is that more people voted against Brexit (16,141,241) than have ever voted against anything in the entire history of the United Kingdom.

You can play with these numbers any way you like. We lads who took inter cert maths can work out that the margin of victory in the 2016 referendum was 1,269,501, which represents 3.8% of the total votes. By contrast, the margin of victory in the 1975 referendum (in favour of remaining in the EU) was 8,908,508, representing 34.5% of the vote. So a much larger majority, both in relative terms and in absolute terms, than in 2016.

In truth, the "largest ever mandate' claim about the 2016 referendum comes down to little more than the fact that the population of the UK was larger in 2016 than at any time before.

c.p.w.g.w

Calina wrote: »

First past the post has to go.

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

Peregrinus

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, no, you have this the wrong way around. In a FPTP election the candidate with the largest vote will always be elected, even if he has a minority of the overall vote and a clear majority of voters would rather have anyone but him.

VinLieger

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, no, you have this the wrong way around. In a FPTP election the candidate with the largest vote will always be elected, even if he has a minority of the overall vote and a clear majority of voters would rather have anyone but him.

Isn't the issue that smaller parties and independents are disproportionately under represented using FPtP?



Also you nearly always have a government being elected by less than 50% of the population so they are bound to be endlessly unpopular.



Example Labour in 2005 getting 35% of the votes but winning 55% of the seats.


It inevitably trends towards a two party system due to the disenfranchisement of smaller party supporters feeling their votes for their party is useless so they vote for 1 of the 2 largest parties.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Looks like this is all going to end up in Remain. Grieve's move will likely mean the deal gets voted down, and when faced with Remain or No Deal, the House will go with Remain.

No Deal isn't a possibility anymore. They can't just mistakenly end up there.

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

Parliament always had the right to tell the government what to do. Every bill needs a majority to pass. However that is based on there being (a) cabinet unanimity, party cohesion and an effective whip system.

None of those are currently in operation so while parliament has the authority and means to say no to anything, there no working mechanism to produce something that a majority of any sort will say yes to.

Its interesting.

Peregrinus

Yes. All of these things are true. Plus, FPTP give party organisations great power at the expense of voters. In a large proportion of Uk constitutuencies the MP is effectively selected by a local party committee.

But this doesn't stop the UK being, on the whole, a very well-governmed country which has accountable governments, respects the rule of law, etc, etc. The present train-wreck isn't particularly an outcome of the UK's rather clunky electoral system, and the UK has had other refernendums which didn't end like this.

I think myself the problem is thaat the referendum is something of a novelty in the UK constitutional system, and they haven't really worked out what referndums are for, how they work, and what it is reasonable or unreasonable to expect them to achieve. I think the present episide will appear in future generations politics textbooks as an Awful Example of when not to conduct a referendum, and how not to conduct a referndum, and what not to expect from a referendum. But I don't think you necessarily need to change the electoral system to fix that. There may be other good arguments for changing the UK electoral system, but not this one.

Econ__

Peregrinus wrote: »

They could, though. The Commons has taken back the right to tell the government what to do, but they can't exercise that right in a meaningful way unless there is a majority behind some positive course of action. It's not enough that there's a majority against no deal; no deal will ensue unless (A) there is a positive majority for some other course of action, and (B) that course of action is either "remain" or "make a deal on terms acceptable to the EU". As yet, we don't see a majority for either of those.

We've been here before. Gina Miller fought a case to the Supreme Court to establish, in the teeth of government and Brexiter opposition, that Article 50 notice could not be served without the approval of Parliament, but Parliament completely failed to use the power thus handed to them to control the serving of Article 50 notice in any meaningful or effective way. The government was still allowed to service Article 50 notice when they had no clue as to what end-state they wanted to achieve, and no plan for acheiving it.

There's a great gap between Parliament havin the formal power to avert a no-deal Brexit and Parliament acting effectively to exercise that power.

In theory you're right and deadlock could continue right up until to the 29th March and the UK proceeds with a no deal Brexit.

I think in practice, though, the chances are fanciful. The politics will move very fast over the next 6 weeks or so, the options will be whittled down through votes, Labour will be forced to take a credible position & minds will be focused.

Peregrinus

Econ__ wrote: »

In theory you're right and deadlock could continue right up until to the 29th March and the UK proceeds with a no deal Brexit.

I think in practice, though, the chances are fanciful. The politics will move very fast over the next 6 weeks or so, the options will be whittled down through votes, Labour will be forced to take a credible position & minds will be focused.

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

Shelga

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

FrancieBrady

The legal advice to be published at 11am.

Will it change the debate substantially?

lawred2

Shelga wrote: »

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

not just that though - such a term renders any deal worthless. Why go to all that effort making a deal full in the knowledge that the other side can just walk away when it suits..

Does Dominic Raab still believe that the UK holds all the cards?

He's not that dim is he?

Sam Russell

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

With that system is it possible for someone with the largest vote not to get elected

It has happened many times.

No single party gov has been elected by a majority of the popular vote since 1932. There has only been one coalition Gov in modern times.

Harold Wilson won the election in 1964 with a minority of the popular vote.

Margaret Thatcher never won more than 42% of the popular vote.

And so on ....

cml387

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The legal advice to be published at 11am.

Will it change the debate substantially?

The only thing that strikes me is this.
Did the legal advice involve the precise nature of the legal standing of the Good Friday agreement?

flatty

It's interesting that that object Fox has quietly moved to back a deal, having previously opined from his vast experience as a middle of the road GP that the trade deals the UK would make would be the best and easiest in the history of humanity. Given his clear links with the "Atlantic bridge" (cringe), he obviously felt he was well in with the Americans, and was led to believe that a deal with the US was a formality which would leave him a hero at home, and in his local bank.
It's finally beginning to dawn on him that once he's out from behind the apron skirts of the EU, he's in a shark pool with a cut.
He's a coward who is now quietly trying to creep away.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I like to think so, yes. But it certainly hasn't happened yet. And, in the whole course of this sorry episode, what common sense suggested ought to happen has, mostly, not happened. You'd like to think that, as the stakes become higher, it will happen. But the whole point of brinksmanship is that there is, in fact, a brink. And a parliament so woefully lacking in leadership (on both sides) and so filled with idiots could conceivably fail to pull up in time before going over the brink. It has already done considerable damage to the UK's interests and reputation which could easily have been avoided; I don't think we can take it for granted that it will stop between now and next March.

The one thing that I noticed above all others yesterday is that Boris was given pretty short shrift in the HoC as he blustered on about Cliffs of Dover or whatever he was rabbiting on about. I hope this signals that the MPs are finally realising (and the pathetic attempt to gather 48 letters against TM would, IMO, back up this point) that the time for unicorns and having all the cake, selling it, eating it and getting all the individual ingredients back in the cupboard is over and they now have to make some actual choices based on actual reality. This is not one credible report that says that a No Deal is the better option.

Shelga wrote: »

Dominic Raab on Radio 4, whingeing again, saying the biggest thing he would change in the deal is to remove the bit that says the UK can’t unilaterally end the backstop.

Does John Humphrys challenge him on this, telling him that the EU have repeatedly said this can’t happen?

Of course not. He moves on to the next piece, after thanking him.

Why do I still listen to this rubbish?

Well, I think it is always useful to listen to the other side POV, even if it is completely deluded. I listened to Sammy Wilson yesterday on Newstalk talking about how the EU always rode the smaller countries and within a few years would definitely do the same to Ireland. Unfortunately the interviewer simply gave up rather than ask him why he therefore wanted to stay in a union that was actively working against their wishes whilst wants to leave a union that he only thinks may, at some time in the future, do it.

And that is where all their arguments fall down. On their own, they all sound reasonable. But scratch the surface and there are always massive contradictions. Even the fact that a Unionist is arguing against the power of a union is totally lost on them.