Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Eod100

So looking like no Brexit is likelier over the short-term and possible long-term than no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110542249715253249

Headshot

Mod: Quit the one-liner posts please.

Headshot

Eod100 wrote: »

So looking like no Brexit is likelier over the short-term and possible long-term than no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110542249715253249

The ERG wont like this one bit and the fake support that was for the DUP has eroded

Laois_Man

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Possibly but he is the Chairman of the ERG and by far their most publicly influential. I've no doubt that the true blue Mark Gino Francois MP and others of similar DUP type "Never Never Never" calibre would rather go down fighting than take a pragmatic/strategic path but if JRM goes on to say he will vote for the WA in MV3 I think we'll quickly see many others fall in behind including many Labour MP's from leave constituencies who don't want to be on the wrong side of the final decision but who up to this didn't want to risk backing TM's deal when it had such little chance of success.

JRM getting behind the WA (even reluctantly) could be the trigger for the WA being passed which will give him enormous political capital. He'll be credited with showing true leadership, putting the country (and conveniently his party) ahead of his own strongly held views and the sort of person who should take over negotiations with the EU on the future relationship etc etc.

This move by him will also completely sideline Boris and any others with PM ambitions. It'll be presented that when the moment for compromise and leadership was at it's most critical he acted whilst all others prevaricated. They'll be begging him to become PM and despite not wanting it (cough cough) how can he possibly refuse to serve his country in a time of such crisis blah blah blah!!

There is absolutely zero chance of Jacob Rees Moggs being the next PM...no need for the cough cough - he really doesn't want the job. Don't you know he's a very busy chappy with his businesses and is very happy to stay in his comfort zone where all the difficult decisions are made by others!

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. A new poll should give Remainers/Second Referendum Supporters a serious boost. Not so much for Leave Supporters:

Given three choices, how would you vote?

Remain: 55%
Leave with May's deal: 17%
No Deal: 27%

It's possible that the referendum omission might veto a three-way referendum. Vote Leave managed to successfully change the question from Yes/No to staying in to Remain/Leave. According to Tim Shipman's book, that was worth 4%.

Shelga

From the end of Sammy Wilson's revolting Telegraph article:

"This week's indicative votes are unlikely to present a negotiable way forward so let us not allow ourselves to be worn down by the relentless efforts of those who despise the 17.4 million people who voted to throw off the shackles of Brussels."

He completely ignores the fact that NI voted Remain. He says that Remainers despise Brexiters- what absolute drivel, and dangerous drivel at that.

Must not forget to cancel my free month's trial Telegraph subscription! Why anyone would actually pay money to read hateful, divisive lies is beyond me. And yes, I hate myself a bit for even signing up for the free trial...

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's possible that the referendum omission might veto a three-way referendum. Vote Leave managed to successfully change the question from Yes/No to staying in to Remain/Leave. According to Tim Shipman's book, that was worth 4%.

They don't have a Referendum Commission (unlike Ireland) which was part of the problem. If Parliament is sovereign, then surely it will decide the terms of any future referendum?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

How would that work? I thought there were only two options. Vote to accept WA and thus delay until 22 May to allow for legislation to proceed, or crash out by 12 April.

Have they (EU) also offered a longer extension based on running in the EU elections?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have offered it on the basis that the UK make proposals that can realistically resolve the issue, have they not?

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

They're assuming that the EU would be prepared to talk to a new PM, and yes, if the UK declares on April 11th that it will participate in the European elections, that buys more time.

If the UK Parliament doesn't approve the negotiated deal (WA, Pol Dec, the lot) by 29 March, then it has until 12 April to seek and obtain a further extension. If there's no further extension granted by then, no-deal crash-out on 12 April.

Much UK commentary seems to assume that if the UK seeks a longer extension before 12 April they'll get it, but this isn't necessarily a given. The minimal requirements for a longer extension are likely to be:

- UK participates in the EU elections

- UK presents credible case that a longer extension will not just be treated as an opportunity for more faffing around, but will be used to take steps that are likely to break the deadlock, and produce a better outcome (for the EU) than no-deal.

If those conditions are satisfied then a request for a longer extension will be considered. But whether it will be favourably considered, whether the longer extension will actually be granted, will depend on what plan the UK puts forward, how credible the plan is, how serious the EU thinks the UK is about pursuing it, etc, etc. (And, boys and girls, the EU may think the UK is less likely to stick to any plan it presents if, at the time it presents it, T May is still the Prime Minister. She has pretty comprehensively torched her own credibility with the EU as a reliable interlocutor.)

Some member states (e.g. Ireland, the Netherlands) will favour granting an extension that offers even a modest chance of avoiding (as opposed to merely deferring) no-deal, but others (e.g. France) are fed up with the time and energy the Tory party's self-inflicted psychodrama is draining from the EU, and would not favour granting a long extension unless they are satisfied that it's backed by a really solid plan that is pretty likely to deliver the goods.

By law, any one member state could veto a longer extension, but the EU way is not to have things decided by veto if it can be avoided, and for the members states instead to work hard to develop a consensus position (as we saw in action at the European Council last week). So France, etc, may soften a bit, in order to support a consensus decision. But they may not soften very much.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They don't have a Referendum Commission (unlike Ireland) which was part of the problem. If Parliament is sovereign, then surely it will decide the terms of any future referendum?

My mistake. We have an electoral commission.

Professor Moriarty

Apparently, last night after a meeting, one ERG member said they were "split 50/50" on No Deal versus May's Deal to which another replied "I think it's the other way around. So, the DUP now at odds with the ERG over a 12 month extension and half of the ERG is now at odds with the other half. This is great.

Inquitus

Shelga wrote: »

From the end of Sammy Wilson's revolting Telegraph article:

"This week's indicative votes are unlikely to present a negotiable way forward so let us not allow ourselves to be worn down by the relentless efforts of those who despise the 17.4 million people who voted to throw off the shackles of Brussels."

He completely ignores the fact that NI voted Remain. He says that Remainers despise Brexiters- what absolute drivel, and dangerous drivel at that.

Must not forget to cancel my free month's trial Telegraph subscription! Why anyone would actually pay money to read hateful, divisive lies is beyond me. And yes, I hate myself a bit for even signing up for the free trial...

Can you sign up and immediately cancel, thereby removing the risk of accidentally enriching that rag of a paper?

Enzokk

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and-dublin-in-intense-talks-on-no-deal-plan-for-irish-border-uk-brexit/


Interesting paragraph buried in the article

Well the problem with this is from the UK side and not the EU. The Brexiteers fought against leaving NI inside the EU basically and they were threatening to diverge from EU rules but take NI with them. So it doesn't take away the need for the backstop, it just means the backstop is the solution even if there is no-deal Brexit. This is because of the GFA. This was known before the referendum and never discussed.

The problem is the power the DUP has in the UK right now. Funny as ever that Sammy Wilson is quick to remind everyone that Brexit is a whole 4 nation affair but other stuff, like gay rights is not. He is British when it suits him and it depends on social issues.

Inquitus

Shelga wrote: »

Deleted post.

Indeed, would expect nothing less sly from them. If it was easy to cancel I would sign up for a month so I can get their fully biased Brexit reporting for the next while:

To cancel your subscription please call us free on 0800 316 3656 (UK only). Lines are open 9am-5pm Mon-Fri, 9am-1pm Sat. Closed Sundays & Bank Holidays. Your cancellation will take effect at the next payment date.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Use the proper names of publications please. Post deleted.

seamus

It sounds to me like ERG and DUP have blinked.

They seem to think that maintaining the hardline is running the risk of no Brexit at all rather than a no deal, so are willing to make deals with the figurative devil to avoid a no Brexit scenario at any cost.

This makes me cautiously optimistic.

BobbyBobberson

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1110558331599548422

Can you blame them?

Inquitus

seamus wrote: »

It sounds to me like ERG and DUP have blinked.

They seem to think that maintaining the hardline is running the risk of no Brexit at all rather than a no deal, so are willing to make deals with the figurative devil to avoid a no Brexit scenario at any cost.

This makes me cautiously optimistic.

Well the DUP have gone a different route to Mogg's portion of the ERG.

DUP - Delay for a year is better than signing up to the "backstop"
Mogg's ERG - Better get a Brexit of any sort now than risk a delay and losing Brexit
Francois and Hard ERG - The backstop is the worst of all world's and I am not voting for it full stop.

This split is definitely not enough to get the WA agreement over the line, to even have a chance they need all 10 of the DUP you'd think. 4-8 Labour rogues is not enough to bridge the gap.

ToBeFrank123

Eod100 wrote: »

So looking like no Brexit is likelier over the short-term and possible long-term than no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110542249715253249

Further can kicking with no guarantee anything better will result from it.

The DUP just don't want to do anything unpopular now or anything at all for that matter.

They are a party of indecisive Can Kickers.

Inquitus

Sammy's words of wisdom from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/26/wont-let-pm-remainer-horde-parliament-bully-us-backing-toxic/

Finally the announcement of the details of the no-deal Brexit arrangements by the Irish Republic at the weekend, when they confirmed that they can deal with Irish Border trade without any need for one stick of infrastructure along the border, is the final proof that the exit deal is based on one big con job. The Irish border was never an issue. It was used to secure a leaving arrangement which would dictate the restrictive terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

The EU cat is out of the bag. There is no justification for the Withdrawal Agreement. The only thing that those of us who want to leave the EU have to fear is being locked into a deal which only the EU can release us from. This week's indicative votes are unlikely to present a negotiable way forward so let us not allow ourselves to be worn down by the relentless efforts of those who despise the 17.4 million people who voted to throw off the shackles of Brussels.

ShooterSF

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

Definitely won't happen but how hilarious would it be. Populous vote to leave the "undemocratic EU" and take back control of their country only to be reminded theyre servants to the crown

Inquitus

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

Laois_Man

Inquitus wrote: »

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

I was wondering about that - something bothered me about the idea of the DUP advocating a long extension. It didn't seem right. They need withdrawal done before any possibility of a general election which would very likely remove all and any influence they have on anything!

Anteayer

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My mistake. We have an electoral commission.

They've had an Election Commission since 2000, but it's not really geared up to deal with something like the Brexit Referendum.

It deals with the mostly with the mechanics of elections and their financing - some of the roles that we tend to place with SIPO (Standards in Public Office Commission).

The Referendum Commission in Ireland does not stand permanently. A commission is established ahead of each referendum under the Referendum Act 1998 as amended by the 2001 act of the same name. These came about because of a successful Supreme Court challenge taken by Patricia McKenna in 1995 that ruled that the state could not spend public money supporting one side of a referendum.

It's chaired by either a retired Supreme Court Judge, a former or serving High Court judge and is made up of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and the Clerk of Seanad Éireann. There are also some alternatives if any of those posts can't be filled by those people including: Secretary and Director of Audit of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Director of the Office of the Ombudsman, Clerk Assistant of Dáil Éireann, Clerk Assistant of Seanad Éireann.

The role has actually evolved a bit since 1998 and become slightly less proscriptive about setting out the argument, but the main purpose of the commission is to ensure balance and fairness and in someways it does actually prevent foul play and misinformation going unchallenged.

Ireland didn't arrive at this solution due to progressive legislators thinking this was a great idea, it was largely prompted by learning the hard way and ending up in the Supreme Court having mishandled past referenda, much like the UK has with this one.

I'd argue that both countries could learn from each other on this - a bit of exchange of ideas wouldn't be a bad thing!

Ireland could do with an Electoral Commission to make things more straight forward when it comes to regulating elections and the UK could certainly do with a concept of a referendum commission if it's planing to make referenda a regular part of their democratic process.

The handling of that Brexit referendum was a disaster from the very start. Even the question was ridiculous as nobody had any concept of what exactly Brexit meant. That's been the huge problem for the last two years. You cannot vote for something that is constantly being redefined. I mean one person's definition of Brexit is something akin to the EEA / EFTA while others want to cut all ties and go it totally alone. Then you've got a bizarre juxtaposition of protectionism on the one hand and absolute libertarian economics and somehow those two are coexisting side by side in the weird debate that's going on, despite the fact that they're completely contradictory.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

Inquitus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

It does increase the risk, you would imagine people will vote Yes for their favoured option but no for all the other options, including those they deign to to be acceptable.

AV was the right way to go, properly explained beforehand as per what Ken Clark mooted a couple of months back.

Water John

One thing that has come through from the weekend chequers is that Raab and Johnson are watching each other as to who is the Hard Man of Brexit. Neither willing to blink from fear it damages their chances of becoming PM.
Some choice, Raab or Johnson.

I think the aim is to follow this indicative vote up next Monday with further votes.

Well, pathetic, petty and insecure do not adequately describe this censorship. Look at the video of the performance underneath with the performance drenched in the Union Jack, and flags flying everywhere, and her dress is where the offence is: Royal Albert Hall singer asked to change 'pro-EU' dress.

It's hard to know what stage of English/British nationalism/imperialism these Brexiteers are at.

Anteayer

The whole thing's getting petty when it should be a debate about very substantive issues. What's worrying me is that it's very reminiscent of the kinds of 'debate' you get in Northern Ireland around symbols and symbolism instead of real issues that actually impact people's day to day lives.

It's no wonder the DUP feels right at home n the middle of it.

murphaph

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

What on earth is wrong with these people? Can they not manage a simple "vote in order of your preference" like every Irish voter? What is so difficult about STV here? It's the most obvious use case!

Anteayer

murphaph wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with these people? Can they not manage a simple "vote in order of your preference" like every Irish voter? What is so difficult about STV here? It's the most obvious use case!

Well, I suppose it's a different use case in this scenario. They're not assigning weight to the options, just holding multiple votes on a whole pile of different proposals simultaneously to assess which has a mandate and which hasn't.

It's more of a survey than a vote. The terminology used in Westminster is just a bit archaic and eccentric.