Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They already moved the order in Parliament to hold the elections:


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/832/contents/made

These Euro elections may end up being the most meaningful UK wide if not EU wide. If Labour do well they may have the numbers to elect a centre left President to the EP.

With climate change politics and economics coming down the line anyway, (which must involve co-operation, regulation, sustainability and thus more socialism) this could be a massive opportunity for Corbyn to change the EU from within.

In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that the orchestrators of Brexit and the wider far-right global push are ALL climate deniers.

They know what is coming down the line if democracy is allowed to run its course unhindered.

bob mcbob

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but the people in Westminster don't care about the EU elections and never have.

Currently they stand at:

Labour 19
Tories 18
Ind 10
UKIP 7
Brexit 7
Green 3
SNP 2
DUP 1
UUP 1
Lib Dem 1
SF 1
Plaid Cymru 1
SDP 1

I expect Labour will stand fast, the Tories will lose out to Brexit and UKIP, and no-one at Westminster will notice.

Latest poll shows landslide for labour

Labour 38%
Tory 23%
Brexit party (Farage) 10%
LibDem 8%
UKIP 7%

https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/poll-tories-facing-crushing-defeat-if-uk-holds-eu-elections/

This could mean that the socialists take power in EU

Roger_007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sam Coates reporting that the Commons are breaking for Easter at 5 pm today, a week earlier than advertised at https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/


https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1116241266675736576

Not really much different than when the Brexit vote happened and May decided to launch a GE instead of getting straight down to work on the business of negotiating the leave arrangements. Do they really want to leave at all?
I have long thought that even the most ardent Brexiteers fear the UKs exit from the EU. They actually need the EU as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. If the UK are out of the EU, then the JRMs and the UKIP people of the this world don't have a political reason to exist. What would Farage do if he didn't have the EU stage on which to perform?

Zubeneschamali

bob mcbob wrote: »

Labour 38%
Tory 23%
Brexit party (Farage) 10%
LibDem 8%
UKIP 7%

If the result is exactly proportional, that would mean :

Labour 27 (8+)
Tories 16 (2-)
Brexit 7 (-)
UKIP 5 (2-)
LibDems 5 (4+)

A resounding Remain result.

Tell me how

Roger_007 wrote: »

Not really much different than when the Brexit vote happened and May decided to launch a GE instead of getting straight down to work on the business of negotiating the leave arrangements. Do they really want to leave at all?
I have long thought that even the most ardent Brexiteers fear the UKs exit from the EU. They actually need the EU as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. If the UK are out of the EU, then the JRMs and the UKIP people of the this world don't have a political reason to exist. What would Farage do if he didn't have the EU stage on which to perform?

I think the ardent Brexiteers which you speak of are at the stage in life where they know that they are going to be ok. They have enough in the bank or know that they will have a source of income with which to maintain the standard of living which they wish to have for the remainder of their life and now, they just want to be able to live that with the sense that the UK is a power all of it's own.

They aren't concerned with the long term economic predictions, they aren't concerned with appearing like empty vessels.

If Brexit happens and by then Boris is PM, Farage is out of Europe, JRM is still secure with globally focused fund management schemes, what do they care that car workers in Sunderland are out of a job or the NHS is suffering with staff and funding issues.

Anteayer

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

At 6:54 in the Tusk/Juncker press conference link below, the second part of Chris Morris's (BBC) question (paraphrasing a bit), is:

Article 50 doesn't rule out multiple extensions, is there anything in the language agreed today which says that October the 31st is the final deadline?

Tusk: "Our intention is to finalize this process in October, but [...] I am too old to exclude another scenario, still everything is possible."

Juncker: "A Hard Brexit before the deal would be a total disaster, everyone knows that, so we have to do everything to avoid a hard deal."

Pretty clear that they are already not ruling out a further extension.

Because he won't be in office beyond 31st October, it's not in his gift and he won't tie the hands of a future European Commission.

It could become extremely messy in October if the commission takes a while to put in place it's possible that there'll be no way of even processing a request for a further extension so, the UK could end up crashing out at that stage, assuming it's still in at all.

What Juncker says is also far more significant than Tusk.

The President of the European Commission has serious power, the President of the Council of the European Union is an odd position in the sense that his role is basically to provide a permanent face and point of contact for the Council. He holds no executive power at all but is basically a facilitator.

There was a major issue with the Council being assembled ad hoc. It's just the assembled line ministers for a particular topic (Council of Ministers), or the heads of government when acting as the Council of the EU. As a result, it had no real permanent face and also had issues like larger governments attempting to speak on behalf of the Council e.g. you might have had the French President going to the press, which in a situation like last night wouldn't have been remotely representative of Council views.

So Tusk's position was created to try and give the Council permanent representation, more solid administration and so on.

I can't really think of any equivalent role in our system.

The use of the term "President" tends to cause the UK media to think that he is somehow the president of Europe.

Imreoir2

BarryD2 wrote: »

Cynic in me guesses the 6 month extension suits Leo down to the ground If it were a year, well then we could have a GE as there'd be plenty of space. But 6 months is a bit tight, anything could happen in next few weeks and when we reach November things will be up in the air for a while and winter will be in. Win, win!

British Labour to become the mudguards of the Tory faction fights if they're not very careful and decisive.

I think is suits everyone tbf, kicks the can down the road until after the budget. Brexit ether does of does not get resolved in October and either way we get an electon in late January/early February.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sam Coates reporting that the Commons are breaking for Easter at 5 pm today, a week earlier than advertised at https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/


https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1116241266675736576

Does the UK not need to ratify the extension? I thought the commons specficly bound the government to come back with a vote on extenson?

VinLieger

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Does the UK not need to ratify the extension? I thought the commons specficly bound the government to come back with a vote on extenson?

I thought the cooper vote passing telling them to seek the extension was all that was required?

BarryD2

darem93 wrote: »

How can she actually write this with a straight face? This imagined 'broken relationship' between the people in Northern Ireland and the Irish government is completely made up by the DUP to try and paint the Republic as 'the enemy'. Whereas in reality a large majority of the people in the North support the Irish government's approach and are probably glad someone is actually standing up for them.

Dunno, if she's a unionist and says that there's a growing wedge, a 'broken relationship' between northern unionists and the Republic, who are we to nay say her? There's more than nationalists living up north, we'd do well to remember. That said, doubtless there's many a unionist looking doubtfully at the DUP and their stance, but will vote for them.

Anteayer

They will need to amend their one exit date which was changed from 29 March to 22 May, if I recall correctly.

The extension didn't impose any new conditionality, it just asked for political committment to being reasonable and not trying to sabotage the EU in the interim.

So I don't think the HoC has to do anything until after Easter when they need to adjust the date.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are several:

- "This further extension cannot be allowed to undermine the regular functioning of the EU and its institutions."

- The UK will remain a member state until withdrawal, with full rights and obligations (including, as you point out, the obligation to conduct elections).

- The UK commits to act in a constructive and responsible manner throughout the extennsion period in accordance with the duty of sincere co-operation

- The UK is expected to fulfil this commitment, and its Treaty obligations generally, in a manner that reflects its situation as a withdrawing member state.

- The UK will facilitate the acheivement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives.

- There will be no re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK will not make unilateral commitments, statements or acts incompatiable with the letter and spirit of the WA. The UK will not hamper the implementation of the WA.

- The extension will not be used to negotiate the future relationship

- EuCo will review progress in June 2019.

Thanks for the details. It seems to me that no deal is still a firm possibility if Theresa May is replaced by an ardent brexiteer who makes it impossible for the EU to negotiate in good faith or who tries to assert some kind of dominant negotiating position

aidyhawse

Anteayer wrote: »

They will need to amend their one exit date which was changed from 29 March to 22 May, if I recall correctly.

The extension didn't impose any new conditionality, it just asked for political committment to being reasonable and not trying to sabotage the EU in the interim.

So I don't think the HoC has to do anything until after Easter when they need to adjust the date.

The won't need to as it's written in international law, but they'll probably pass another SI so that UK law = EU law.

Junkyard Tom

BarryD2 wrote: »

There's more than nationalists living up north, we'd do well to remember.

Yet nationalists are invisible to the DUP when it comes to Brexit. The DUP did their best to destroy the GFA and power-sharing and are still trying to run the north like it's their own 17th Century colony.

They deserve nothing.

Anteayer

aidyhawse wrote: »

The won't need to as it's written in international law, but they'll probably pass another SI so that UK law = EU law.

They'll need to update their own legislation though as they put an exit date into an act of parliament which isn't anything to do with last night's process.

darem93

BarryD2 wrote: »

Dunno, if she's a unionist and says that there's a growing wedge, a 'broken relationship' between northern unionists and the Republic, who are we to nay say her? There's more than nationalists living up north, we'd do well to remember. That said, doubtless there's many a unionist looking doubtfully at the DUP and their stance, but will vote for them.

Obviously I can't speak for all Unionists, but I genuinely don't think there is any broken relationship between people in the North and the Irish government. It's just the DUP trying to push that narrative in an attempt to undermine the GFA (let's not forget they did vehemently oppose it).

This really isn't the green vs. orange issue that the DUP are trying to turn it into. This is about protecting peace and people's livelihoods both North and South. I live right on the border and both sides of the community want it to remain open at all costs.

Cryptopagan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both the Irish/NI system and the D'Hondt system used in GB will deliver seats to parties more or less in proportion to their share of the vote.

The differennce is that the Irish system gives the voter a lot more power. The voter determines which party candidates he favours and which he does not, and is free to cross between parties, giving his first preference to a candidate from party A, second to party B, third back to party A, and so forth. In the D'Hondt system the voter merely indicates support for one party; the votes for the various parties are totted up and each party is allocated a number of seats determined by its total of votes, and the party determines which of its candidates fill those seats. (They determine this in advance, by listing the candidates in a specified order. Then if the party wins. say, 3 seats the first 3 candidates in that list will fill them.)

Is that really more power? I don’t find expressing my 5th, 6th, or 7th choice of candidate very empowering, whereas in a list system my 1st choice will count towards the party I support, even if it doesn’t happen to enjoy strong support in my locality.

prawnsambo

darem93 wrote: »

Obviously I can't speak for all Unionists, but I genuinely don't think there is any broken relationship between people in the North and the Irish government. It's just the DUP trying to push that narrative in an attempt to undermine the GFA (let's not forget they did vehemently oppose it).

This really isn't the green vs. orange issue that the DUP are trying to turn it into. This is about protecting peace and people's livelihoods both North and South. I live right on the border and both sides of the community want it to remain open at all costs.

Very good point. A lot of the DUP heartland is well removed from border areas, so they don't have the same exposure to the problems there. And don't want to.



On a slightly more humourous note, the SNP are still able to raise a smile with their no-nonsense approach.

lawred2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Is that really more power? I don’t find expressing my 5th, 6th, or 7th choice of candidate very empowering, whereas in a list system my 1st choice will count towards the party I support, even if it doesn’t happen to enjoy strong support in my locality.

and what if you 'support' an independent candidate or independent candidates?

Cryptopagan

lawred2 wrote: »

and what if you 'support' an independent candidate or independent candidates?

You can have a mixed system, as in Germany where some seats are filled by list, some by single seat fptp.

The pundit class in Ireland are mostly very enthusiastic about our system, and there are always articles in the run up to a GE about how you should rank all candidates on the paper, and this is such a great system that lets the voter do this, but I don’t care if my sixth choice is counted, (which in a way it isn’t anyhow, because they extrapolate from a bundle of votes when distributing preferences.)

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

and what if you 'support' an independent candidate or independent candidates?

What if there are two Tories running in your constituency, one is an odious Brexiteer and the other is Ken Clarke, and the party puts the OB first? You get no say.


With STV, after you've voted Lib Dem, Green Party, Labour in descending order of Remainness, you can vote for Clarke over the OB.

prawnsambo

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Is that really more power? I don’t find expressing my 5th, 6th, or 7th choice of candidate very empowering, whereas in a list system my 1st choice will count towards the party I support, even if it doesn’t happen to enjoy strong support in my locality.

The problem is that you can't express an opinion on the actual caindidates themselves. So head office can stick an absolute gibbering idiot on the ticket and they'll get elected if the party gets the votes. This is how you end up with the likes of Daniel Hannan.

Edit: It may work well when you have a system that selects credible candidates. But FPTP has changed the political establishment to the point that candidates for parliament just have to persuade their local selection committee and in a huge number of cases will just waltz in unopposed. The d'Hondt system just extends that to MEPs.

farmchoice

Cryptopagan wrote: »

You can have a mixed system, as in Germany where some seats are filled by list, some by single seat fptp.

as a slight aside, if there is one thing that this whole sorry debalce has highlighted it is that a list system can be a terribly bad idea.


the only reason imbeciles like mark francois, andrew bridgen, david davies etc could ever get elected is because the tory party use a list system for picking their candidates.

now this is not exactly the same as d'hont but its what happens, party hacks get but on the ballot and are given safe tory seats.
this goes for threasa may as well, it is often said that until the last election she never really had to campaign in her life becauses she runs in a very safe tory seat.

Peregrinus

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Is that really more power? I don’t find expressing my 5th, 6th, or 7th choice of candidate very empowering, whereas in a list system my 1st choice will count towards the party I support, even if it doesn’t happen to enjoy strong support in my locality.

You may not feel very empowered expressing a fifth, sixth or seventh preference, but your feelings are misleading you; many an election goes to multiple counts where fifth, sixth and seventh preferences determine the outcome. Remember, if your fifth, sixth or seventh preference for Candidate Quinn becomes effective, it counts just as much as somebody else's first preference for him.

As for your first choice counting for a party you support in a list system, in our system it counts just as effectively both for the party which support and for the particular candidate of that party whom you support.

Essentially the closed list system used in the UK takes the power of identifying popular and unpopular candidates away from voters, and gives that power to party officials. And it deprives you entirely of expressing any nuances of support for parties. If you vote (say) Labour, you have absolutely no way of signalling that, after Labour, you would prefer the Lib Dems over the Tories, or whatever. All you can say is that you prefer Labour over every other party, and your happy to trust the Labour party to decide who will represent you. Unless you happen to be a mindless party loyalist, I don't see that as terribly satisfactory.

Laois_Man

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think is suits everyone tbf, kicks the can down the road until after the budget. Brexit ether does of does not get resolved in October and either way we get an electon in late January/early February.

Well the next Irish election doesn't have to happen for exactly 2 years from now. If come the end of the year, Brexit is in another short extension and FF aren't happy with the polling, it will be the perfect excuse to sit tight for another while!

Cryptopagan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What if there are two Tories running in your constituency, one is an odious Brexiteer and the other is Ken Clarke, and the party puts the OB first? You get no say.


With STV, after you've voted Lib Dem, Green Party, Labour in descending order of Remainness, you can vote for Clarke over the OB.

If you live in a strongly pro Brexit constituency, your choice will most likely be among leaver candidates anyhow, when the issue determining your preference is a national one.

Hurrache

How a functional society, government and judiciary handles things.
https://twitter.com/lilo11/status/1116255088815820800

ancapailldorcha

Not an entirely fair comparison thought I'd be lying if I weren't simmering with jealousy. The Swiss are very well accustomed to having regular referenda and so have processes to ensure fair play that I can only dream of for the UK. Given that the structure of Switzerland is 26 cantons, anything less might not be feasible there as you might have the more populous cantons dictating the show.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sam Coates reporting that the Commons are breaking for Easter at 5 pm today, a week earlier than advertised at https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/


https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1116241266675736576

In fairness I was listening to Brexitcast last week and they had two MPs on and they sounded broken. Mentally and physically exhausted. If they use this time to recharge the batteries , consult with their constituents and other MPs in a lower pressure environment it mightn't be the worse thing

Cryptopagan

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may not feel very empowered expressing a fifth, sixth or seventh preference, but your feelings are misleading you; many an election goes to multiple counts where fifth, sixth and seventh preferences determine the outcome. Remember, if your fifth, sixth or seventh preference for Candidate Quinn becomes effective, it counts just as much as somebody else's first preference for him.

I still can’t accept that counting my 7th preference is empowering. Personally I don’t list my preferences so far down the ballot, as I don’t see ranking my least preferred candidates as very meaningful.