Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

briany

bob mcbob wrote: »

The gloves are really coming off in the Tory civil war

Rees-Mogg (Eton) accuses Boles (Winchester) of making a Wykehamist point: "highly intelligent but fundamentally wrong."

Then he throws public school shade on Old Etonian Letwin of being more Winchester than Eton.

Can't see Letwin coming back from that.

Even Mogg's slagging is painfully gentrified. What'll he say about Boles next? That his Latin pronunciation is sub-par?

seamus

Laois_Man wrote: »

But surely the Baron motion and the Fysh motion are the exact same thing then?

In essence, yes.

Brexiteers conjured up the "managed no deal" phrase because "Hard Brexit", "Crash out", etc all sounded too doomsday-esque and chaotic. Whereas the idea that one could "manage" Brexit without any trade agreements is much more reassuring.

In many quarters there is the belief that if the UK decides to leave without a deal, then that surity means that they can face down the EU to demand some last-minute concessions and deals. Whereas if they just get to the deadline by accident, they'll be forced to swallow whatever soup is put in front of them.

It's a fantasy, but one they now believe themselves.

brickster69

3. The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week. If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by the House of Commons next week, the European Council agrees to an extension until 12 April 2019 and expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council.


If the withdrawal agreement is not even voted on in the next two days will there be no extension at all, seen as it has not even been brought forward to be approved or been rejected ?

According to some EU past lawmakers, the EU could only accept a date, reject a date or agree another date. Legally they could not demand conditions on dates.

Headshot

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's isn't a double standard at all. Indicative voting is a process by which several options are put to Parliament to see which, if any would command majority support.

Parliament only voted on a motion to avoid no deal. This wasn't much more than an expression of the House's will. It is still the legal default as things stand.

I take it back, Bercow is indeed not letting me down

MadYaker

Huge calls to make though! I wouldn't fancy his job

ancapailldorcha

Headshot wrote: »

I take it back, Bercow is indeed not letting me down

One positive thing about Brexit seems to be that it has shown that at some of our Institutions are in more robust health than might have been previously thought such as the judiciary, the Speaker & Parliament. Crying shame about the media though.

Laois_Man

Farage in the European Parliament today has somewhere seen opinion polls that give "Leave" a nearly 20-point lead in second referendum polls

Michel Barnier responds reminding the UK have created problems and offered no solutions and that even Farage himself cannot demonstrate any added value from Brexit

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

3. The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week. If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by the House of Commons next week, the European Council agrees to an extension until 12 April 2019 and expects the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward before this date for consideration by the European Council.


If the withdrawal agreement is not even voted on in the next two days will there be no extension at all, seen as it has not even been brought forward to be approved or been rejected ?

According to some EU past lawmakers, the EU could only accept a date, reject a date or agree another date. Legally they could not demand conditions on dates.

They're not demanding conditions. They are supplying different dates depending on what the UK decides. The longest extension is provided for the government to get their legislation in order so that they can leave without a constitutional crisis. The shorter date just reflects the lack of need for the extra time.

Professor Moriarty

Bercow getting serious flak from all sides. This won't end well for parliamentary procedure.

brickster69

3. The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week.

Of course they have set conditions.

FrancieBrady

brickster69 wrote: »

3. The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons next week.

Of course they have set conditions.

It isn't a stringent or restrictive condition though when they have also given options for not meeting the condition set for that date - which is another later date.

brickster69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't a stringent or restrictive condition though when they have also given options for not meeting the condition set for that date - which is another later date.

"The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons"

They have attached conditions to both dates however you look at it.

"If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by the House of Commons next week, , the European Council agrees to an extension until 12 April 2019

FrancieBrady

brickster69 wrote: »

"The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons"

They have attached conditions to both dates however you look at it.

Off course they did, simply to distinguish the two dates.

think about it, if they hadn't done that, here is what it would have looked like: :rolleyes:

The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019.

The European Council agrees to another extension until 12th April.

What sense would that make?

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

"The European Council agrees to an extension until 22 May 2019, provided the Withdrawal Agreement is approved by the House of Commons"

They have attached conditions to both dates however you look at it.

"If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved by the House of Commons next week, , the European Council agrees to an extension until 12 April 2019

It's giving the UK a choice. Not forcing them to make one. They set it out that way so that the UK would not have to come back to them based on something unexpected happening in parliament. And it stems directly from May being unable to come up with a coherent answer to "what happens if your deal doesn't get through?".

ancapailldorcha

By the way, the petition has elicited a response from Parliament. It will debate the petition on the 1st April 2019. It has also given the below response:

It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.

The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.

British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.

This Government stands by this commitment.

Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

Department for Exiting the European Union.

Basically, the same sort of bland and anodyne PR nonsense we've become accustomed to.

Headshot

1922 meeting happening shortly.

Love to be a fly on the wall in there, some members will try to get her to resign on a specific date where as she'll be stubborn and stay on

Professor Moriarty

Headshot wrote: »

1922 meeting happening shortly.

Love to be a fly on the wall in there, some members will try to get her to resign on a specific date where as she'll be stubborn and stay on

I dunno. I think it's a case of when, not if. She has no authority anymore.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

By the way, the petition has elicited a response from Parliament. It will debate the petition on the 1st April 2019. It has also given the below response:



Basically, the same sort of bland and anodyne PR nonsense we've become accustomed to.

That was sent by email to millions of people who signed the petition. Basically, "Shut up and get back in your box."

Headshot

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I dunno. I think it's a case of when, not if. She has no authority anymore.

When has that stopped her before lol
They cannot force her out though. They tried that but failed miserably and she could stick around until the next election which she agreed she wont take part in

brickster69

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's giving the UK a choice. Not forcing them to make one. They set it out that way so that the UK would not have to come back to them based on something unexpected happening in parliament. And it stems directly from May being unable to come up with a coherent answer to "what happens if your deal doesn't get through?".

Yes i get your point. However both dates do have conditions attached to each option / date.

Junkyard Tom

You'd have to have the strategic nous of a jellyfish to take on the role of British PM at the moment although I guess ambition knows no bounds. In many ways it'd be no harm, in the longer term, if the ERG crowd were driving the bus as it careened off the white Cliffs of Dover.

Professor Moriarty

Headshot wrote: »

When has that stopped her before lol
They cannot force her out though. They tried that but failed miserably and she could stick around until the next election which she agreed she wont take part in

There comes a time when you can't control your cabinet and then you don't have the authority to lead. She's at that point now. She's been given a pistol and a glass of whisky and they'll wait politely outside the door. Otherwise she will face a vote of confidence and her tenure will end in a bloodbath.

Laois_Man

That speech by Nicky Morgan was as deluded as anything I have heard in the last 2 years! Ludicrous!

Penn

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There comes a time when you can't control your cabinet and then you don't have the authority to lead. She's at that point now. She's been given a pistol and a glass of whisky and they'll wait politely outside the door. Otherwise she will face a vote of confidence and her tenure will end in a bloodbath.

Her own party can't go for a Tory-party vote of no confidence though if I remember correctly. She's immune for a certain period of time as she won the vote back in December. It would only be if a vote of no confidence was brought before Parliament, but I'm not sure if they can do that for the Prime Minister herself or would it have to be for the Government as a whole.

That's my basic understanding of it anyway but could be wrong.

Laois_Man

Penn wrote: »

Her own party can't go for a Tory-party vote of no confidence though if I remember correctly. She's immune for a certain period of time as she won the vote back in December. It would only be if a vote of no confidence was brought before Parliament, but I'm not sure if they can do that for the Prime Minister herself or would it have to be for the Government as a whole.

That's my basic understanding of it anyway but could be wrong.

They can do either - a vote of no confidence in the Government would surely trigger an automatic general election

woohoo!!!

May won't be got rid of so easily. She's determined to put it mildly to get her way.

Spook_ie

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There comes a time when you can't control your cabinet and then you don't have the authority to lead. She's at that point now. She's been given a pistol and a glass of whisky and they'll wait politely outside the door. Otherwise she will face a vote of confidence and her tenure will end in a bloodbath.

But she can't be ousted by a NC vote from PM until December, C Party rules, the only way for her to be ousted as PM would be a lost GE or a self imposed resignation, them's the rules.

Penn

Laois_Man wrote: »

They can do either - a vote of no confidence in the Government would surely trigger an automatic general election

Right, but the Tories would likely oppose the vote in that case as better to be in power with a bad PM than possibly lose their seats/majority. So unless it was a vote of no confidence just in TM, we could end up with no change.

hill16bhoy

Laois_Man wrote: »

That speech by Nicky Morgan was as deluded as anything I have heard in the last 2 years! Ludicrous!

Morgan used to be thought of as a sane voice in the Tory party. No longer. The mask has slipped in a big way in recent months to the point where she's now taken about as seriously as the ERG are by reasonable people.

Professor Moriarty

Penn wrote: »

Her own party can't go for a Tory-party vote of no confidence though if I remember correctly. She's immune for a certain period of time as she won the vote back in December. It would only be if a vote of no confidence was brought before Parliament, but I'm not sure if they can do that for the Prime Minister herself or would it have to be for the Government as a whole.

That's my basic understanding of it anyway but could be wrong.

She is immune from a vote as leader but not as PM. If she goes, the government goes. She's been told that she doesn't command the party or cabinet. Tory MPs can make governance impossible and there is always the sledgehammer of a no confidence vote. She's a Tory first and foremost so she'll do the 'right thing' and fall on her sword.