Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
A lot of bad takes on here. If you don't understand the complex dynamics of UK politics very well than you may as well not comment, because that is what was at the heart of tonight's extension formulation, expertly crafted by the EU.
May wanted the EU to agree to an extension until the 30th of June and slap on a condition that it's only granted if the deal passes next week. Her strategy was to blackmail Labour MPs with the threat of no deal to get it over the line - a very risky game.
The EU tonight have torn up that strategy. Through cleverly designed transition offer - they have given moderate MPs the time to vote down May's deal next week and have enough time to hold indicative votes to find a way forward (most likely through a softer form of Brexit). Remember that MPs were only two votes off forcing an indicative votes process on the government last week. Any trust or goodwill that moderate MPs had towards May will have evaporated after her behaviour in the last few days - it's now highly likely that the amendment will pass the next time it's put.
The EU tonight have effectively put the wheels in motion for a new cross party political process to which should help resolve the Brexit question in the HoC.
I thought the same proposal couldn't be put to the HoC twice in the same parliamentary session without significant alterations.
I realised May's deal maybe get voted on again next week, but that is a truly extraordinary circumstance. Not sure if the same courtesy will be afforded to previously failed amendments.0 -
Econ__ wrote:MPs were only two votes off forcing an indicative votes process on the government last week. Any trust or goodwill that moderate MPs had towards May will have evaporated after her behaviour in the last few days - it's now highly likely that the amendment will pass the next time it's put.
Will they be allowed to vote on this again?0 -
Will they be allowed to vote on this again?
Well she got 2 goes so maybe thats a new precident.
I find it extraordinary that she keeps banging on about no new referendum because thats the will of the people but she thinks she can have three goes at her plan, ignoring 2 large defeats first 2 times.
And there was even mention of mv4 tonight.0 -
When you look back at what was said during the referendum campaign, the will of the people does not appear to have been for a hard Brexit.
You'd various suggestions that the UK would be able to maintain full market access and so on. It was very much the so called "cakeist" fantasy stuff of one foot in and one foot out.
On top of that you'd people voting to save the NHS and all sorts of issues that had nothing to do with it.
That somehow has morphed into the hardest of hard Brexits.
It's very hard to say that was ever the will of the people. At best it's very much stretching the truth and revising what was actually said during that campaign and also frankly doing that "looking into my heart as knowing what the people want" style or politics.
It feels like the whole country has been duped into signing up for something without knowing what it was and then had the goal posted moved several times after they'd signed on the dotted line.0 -
It seems to me that the Uk has just checked into the Hotel California.0
-
Advertisement
-
ThePanjandrum wrote: »I think that you'll find that they don't say that leaving the Single Market was on the ballot paper, however, if you read the leaflet distributed by the Government, which was meant to fulfil the EU's referendum guidance, you will see that voters were threatened several times with a more distant relationship with the Single Market. So the majority voted to leave knowing that this meant that we would no longer be members of the Single Market and that access to it might be restricted. So despite what is often claimed by Remainers, people voted for Brexit in the knowledge that this would take them out of the Customs Union and distance them from the Single Market, they did so knowing that it might make them poorer, they did so because they wanted to take back their country's sovereignty which had been given away.
Many people spoke of a WTO deal as a distinct possibility before the Referendum and there were many discussions about it. Not accepting that this happened is rewriting history.
A few evenings before the referendum, RTE did some interviews around the Border area in which they asked them what way they were voting. One person interviewed (think he was the Mayor of Newry) who said he was voting Leave was asked 'what about the Border'? He replied that Boris J. and Theresa Villiers had been campaigning in Newry and they said that Brexit would make no difference to the Border. From what I recall, a lot of the Brexiteer campaigning revolved around ''Germany needs to sell us cars'', etc. etc. (the UK would have its cake and eat it too).
I feel sorry for that poor man in Newry now.0 -
The problem with this argument is that it assume that people who voted to Leave:ThePanjandrum wrote: »I think that you'll find that they don't say that leaving the Single Market was on the ballot paper, however, if you read the leaflet distributed by the Government, which was meant to fulfil the EU's referendum guidance, you will see that voters were threatened several times with a more distant relationship with the Single Market. So the majority voted to leave knowing that this meant that we would no longer be members of the Single Market and that access to it might be restricted. So despite what is often claimed by Remainers, people voted for Brexit in the knowledge that this would take them out of the Customs Union and distance them from the Single Market, they did so knowing that it might make them poorer, they did so because they wanted to take back their country's sovereignty which had been given away.
(a) knew the promises of the Remain campaign to be true, and relied on them in casting their vote, but
(b) knew the promises of the Leave campaign to be lies, but chose to vote anyway with the lying liars who lied.
Viewed dispassionately, this seems unlikely. Far more likely, surely, that those who voted with the Leave campaign did so because they were persuaded by the assertions of the Leave campaign?
That's certainly the conventional way of viewing matters. A political party which wins an election, for instance, is regarded as having a mandate requiring it to carry out what was set out in its manifesto, not a mandate requiring it to inflict the various national calamities that were predicted by the Cassandras of the opposition should it be elected.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The problem with this argument is that it assume that people who voted to Leave:
(a) knew the promises of the Remain campaign to be true, and relied on them in casting their vote, but
(b) knew the promises of the Leave campaign to be lies, but chose to vote anyway with the lying liars who lied.
Viewed dispassionately, this seems unlikely. Far more likely, surely, that those who voted with the Leave campaign did so because they were persuaded by the assertions of the Leave campaign?
That's certainly the conventional way of viewing matters. A political party which wins an election, for instance, is regarded as having a mandate requiring it to carry out what was set out in its manifesto, not a mandate requiring it to inflict the various national calamities that were predicted by the Cassandras of the opposition should it be elected.
Sorry, I don't understand your argument at all. Where do you get a) and b) from? and what does your final paragraph relate to?0 -
A lot of bad takes on here. If you don't understand the complex dynamics of UK politics very well than you may as well not comment, because that is what was at the heart of tonight's extension formulation, expertly crafted by the EU.
May wanted the EU to agree to an extension until the 30th of June and slap on a condition that it's only granted if the deal passes next week. Her strategy was to blackmail Labour MPs with the threat of no deal to get it over the line - a very risky game.
The EU tonight have torn up that strategy. Through cleverly designed transition offer - they have given moderate MPs the time to vote down May's deal next week and have enough time to hold indicative votes to find a way forward (most likely through a softer form of Brexit). Remember that MPs were only two votes off forcing an indicative votes process on the government last week. Any trust or goodwill that moderate MPs had towards May will have evaporated after her behaviour in the last few days - it's now highly likely that the amendment will pass the next time it's put.
The EU tonight have effectively put the wheels in motion for a new cross party political process to which should help resolve the Brexit question in the HoC.
Apparently, the main reason for this is they knew May had zero chance of getting her deal through Parliament. They've effectively completely bypassed her and have done it a week in advance.0 -
Yeah, but the EU is generally happy to toss them a bone.It was first drawn last November.
This is all fuel to the "EU always blinks and makes a deal at the last minute" crowd.
This happens a lot with EU negotiations, since they are nearly always negotiating with a smaller, weaker party. So there's a dynamic which works like this:
1. Small weak party talks tough. Does this partly as a negotiating position, but mainly for domestic consumption.
2. By talking too tough, small weak party paints itself into a corner.
3. Small weak party badly wants a deal, but will have domestic problems if seen to climb down.
4. So EU tosses small weak party a bone, which small weak party identifies as the EU "blinking". Small weak party's virility have been demonstrated, small weak party can now climb down.
5. Deal is done on EU terms.
That is exactly what has happened here. The EU has compromised on the date of Brexit, which is a process matter, but not at all on the terms of Brexit, which are a substantial matter. Small weak party says that EU has blinked. EU is quite happy for them to say this; the whole point of the concession is so that they can say this, because they have to be able tos say this in order to shift their own position, which is what EU wants them to do.
The Brexity voices saying "EU has blinked!" are, you will find, the ones who will now abandon irredentist positions and move towards a deal with the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
As I see it, the Council decision opens up the following decision paths:
1. HoC approves negotiated deal by 29 March and...
(a) ...UK has until 22 May to enact necessary legislation, leaves on 22 May on terms of negotiated deal; or
(b) ...before 12 April, UK requests long extension to renegotiate Pol Dec towards softer Brexit
2. HoC does not approve negotiated deal by end of next week and...
(a) ... before 12 April, UK requests long extension for general election, second referendum, other plan; or
(b) ...UK revokes A50 notice on or before 12 April; or
(c) ...no-deal Brexit on 12 April.
Couple of points on this:
Decision path 1 requires HoC to approve MV3 by 29 March. In all other circumstances - HoC rejects MV3, HoC fails to vote on MV3, May doesn’t move MV3, May moves MV3 but Bercow rules it out of order - we are in decision path 2.
Decision path 1(b) is not one I regard as especially likely, but I include it because it is open to the Commons. The EU may of course not agree to grant the longer extension, pointing out that the Pol Dec isn't binding and can be renegotiated after Brexit.
There is no decision path which includes the renegotiation of the WA. (Which is not to say that that couldn’t late become a possibility under decision path 2(a). But right now it’s not on offer, and may never be.)
May is committed to the negotiated deal, so she will move MV3. Bercow will allow it, because the link between MV3 and an A50 extension is a substantial new factor which justifies the Commons considering it again.
May’s alt-right populist authoritarian attack on Parliament the other night will not have helped her build parliamentary support for the passage of MV3. But in the end MPs may decide that in the end it’s not the biggest issue, and shouldn’t affect how they vote on MV3.
It may be wishful thinking, but I think there is a realistic chance of MV3 passing. We know there’s a strong majority in the HoC that would like to rule out no-deal. We also know that there’s a strong majority against revoking A50 without a second referendum ( and a chunk of them are against revoking A50 at all - i.e. they don’t want a second referendum).
So for the majority in Parliament, the “live” options are basically 1(a), 1(b) and 2(a). And the outcome of 2(a) is very, very uncertain; whatever you might hope to get out of that, you’d be very conscious that you might end up getting something very different.
All of which makes me think, the people who want either 1(a) or 1(b) could well, between them, be a majority. And they’ll vote to approve the negotiated deal.
But . . .
Labour will whip against the negotiated deal, because the two things their party policy calls for - an election, a second referendum if there is no election - are both attainable only under 2(a). But neither of them is a guaranteed outcome, so some Labour MPs will be tempted to vote against the whip. Hard to know how many this will be.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
(a) ... before 12 April, UK requests long extension for general election, second referendum, other plan; or
"Other Plan" mentioned here could be that before April 12th, there is a new PM who wants to go back and explore everything, starting the negotiations all over again, with no red lines.
I think the EU heads based in Brussels (Tusk, Barnier and Juncker) would be happy to accommodate this wish. I'm not so sure about some individual heads of state though - Macron in particular.
In any case, we've seen frequent predictions of the imminent fall of Teresa May since at least the Chequers plan last July, yet still she lives on. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if she survives through this also. At least until withdrawal has officially occurred. So there's a strong chance that this speculation as to what a new PM would want to do is completely irrelevant! Even she did fall, having a new PM in place before April 12th would require a rushed and uncontested Tory party leadership takeover, and they won't be queuing up - they won't even be wanting to oust her until withdrawal is done - so I think she'll see it through - assuming it happens on either April 12th or May 22nd!
By the way - April 12th - within a couple of days of the 107th anniversary of the sinking of the great, unsinkable, British ship, Titanic - how ironic!0 -
I suppose a possible sequence of events is:"Other Plan" mentioned here could be that before April 12th, there is a new PM who wants to go back and explore everything, starting the negotiations all over again, with no red lines.
I think the EU heads based in Brussels (Tusk, Barnier and Juncker) would be happy to accommodate this wish. I'm not so sure about some individual heads of state though - Macron in particular.
In any case, we've seen frequent predictions of the imminent fall of Teresa May since at least the Chequers plan last July, yet still she lives on. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if she survives through this also. At least until withdrawal has officially occurred. So there's a strong chance that this speculation as to what a new PM would want to do is completely irrelevant! Even she did fall, having a new PM in place before April 12th would require a rushed and uncontested Tory party leadership takeover, and they won't be queuing up - they won't even be wanting to oust her until withdrawal is done - so I think she'll see it through - assuming it happens on either April 12th or May 22nd!
- May fails to get the negotiated deal approved by the HoC by 29 March. She resigns as party leader and (possibly) as PM.
- Either May or a caretaker PM (Lidington?) goes to Brussels in early April and asks for a longer extension so that the new PM can be identified, can take office and can have a change to frame his/her Brexit policy.
I suspect the answer to such a request would be:
- Any extension requires UK to participate in Parliament elections and sent MEPs to Strasbourg after 1 July.
- We're not keen on this in the best of circumstances, but we're buggered if we're going to accept it so the Tory Party can sort itself out. Feck off.
I think they'd be reinforced in this attitude by the knowledge that any successor to May is likely to be inclined to cleave to a harder Brexit, not a softer Brexit, so the chances of them setting the UK on a course for Brexit on the negotiated deal are not high.0 -
Will they be allowed to vote on this again?
I am sure the Speaker will allow the votes as there has been a change now in circumstances, i.e. a change of dates and a way forward for the House to take command. He will allow the government to bring forth their plan for a third time as well as the amendments, that way neither side can complain about bringing back votes that have been voted on before.
I assume that May doesn't have to ask parliament about the extensions seeing as they already voted for that?ThePanjandrum wrote: »Sorry, I don't understand your argument at all. Where do you get a) and b) from? and what does your final paragraph relate to?
Because you said the government produced leaflet advised that leaving meant no single market access (or distant access) and warned of what could happen. The argument is that the Leave campaign maligned all of that as project fear and not to be believed, Daniel Hannan stating that no-one is threatening access to the single market.
So the only way you can state that people were informed of the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal is to think that they believed the government warnings over the protests of the Leave campaigners. You could bolster your argument by linking clips to people claiming all of this before the negotiations started in earnest and the consequences became clear.
From what I remember the talk from leave voters at the start of all of this was very much the have your cake and eat it scenario and not the reality we have now.0 -
I am not sure what you are trying to prove here. The EU knew time will be needed for May to pass the legislation needed for Brexit once she gets her deal approved by the House of Commons. that is why they set a deadline during the negotiations for a date to conclude the talks and have the deal ready. This was done so the EU could not be blamed for not giving enough time to the UK to get their house in order before leaving on the 29th March and they leave without a deal.
The deadline in the article is discussing this target that the EU set for the talks to conclude and a deal to be negotiated. This is Theresa May's deal, the Withdrawal Agreement and it has been agreed since the 14th November, almost exactly the 4 weeks delay mentioned in the article.The deadline for Britain and the European Union to agree the terms of Brexit has been pushed back by four weeks amid fears that Conservative MPs could scupper Theresa May’s Chequers deal.
Negotiators for the EU and UK have agreed a new “hard deadline” of mid-November, according to sources in Whitehall, to sign off the deal at a special meeting of EU heads of Government. Any vote of MPs could come after that.
Brexit deal: key points from the draft withdrawal agreement
This article is dated 14 November 2018.
And from your linked article it describes why the date of middle November was put down as a deadline for the deal to be negotiated.The UK is not scheduled to leave the EU until 29 March 2019, but the withdrawal agreement needs to be settled some months before to allow the UK and European parliaments time to approve the terms of the UK's exit.
This was quite well known before the triggering of article 50. The 2 year time block is not 2 years to negotiate but more like 19 months as ratification still need to happen. The UK finds itself about 2 months behind because May thought it would be a good idea to hold a general election in the middle of the process.0 -
Wait a minute, aside from the fact that a "more distant relationship" does not necessarily mean " entirely out", the government was engaging in project fear. On the leave side absolutely no-one was talking about leaving the single market- indeed one of the architects of brexit specifically reinforced, emphasised and confirmed - repeatedly- that absolutely no-one was talking about leaving the single market.ThePanjandrum wrote: »I think that you'll find that they don't say that leaving the Single Market was on the ballot paper, however, if you read the leaflet distributed by the Government, which was meant to fulfil the EU's referendum guidance, you will see that voters were threatened several times with a more distant relationship with the Single Market. So the majority voted to leave knowing that this meant that we would no longer be members of the Single Market and that access to it might be restricted. So despite what is often claimed by Remainers, people voted for Brexit in the knowledge that this would take them out of the Customs Union and distance them from the Single Market, they did so knowing that it might make them poorer, they did so because they wanted to take back their country's sovereignty which had been given away.
Many people spoke of a WTO deal as a distinct possibility before the Referendum and there were many discussions about it. Not accepting that this happened is rewriting history.
Are you now saying that the Brexiters were and are lying charlatans and that we shouldn't listen to a word they say?
Furthermore as regards a no deal or car crash brexit - the leave campaign itself guaranteed that that would not happen - indeed several of the leave HQ campaigners have recently confirmed that anyone suggesting otherwise was rewriting history.
You aren't rewriting history are you?0 -
ThePanjandrum wrote: »Sorry, I don't understand your argument at all. Where do you get a) and b) from? and what does your final paragraph relate to?
I would suggest that perhaps if you read it slowly or aloud, you can work it - or most of it - out.
If you are still having trouble at that point, please indicate that- and I am sure I or someone on the thread can help you with it.
EDIT: I see that further clarification has been given- please indicate if it remains insufficient.0 -
From you. You said that Leave voters knew that Brexit would take the UK out of the Customs Union and the Single Market because it said so in a government leaflet. But that statement assumes that Leave voters accepted what was in the government leaflet as correct. Whereas in fact the Leave voters may not have accepted that; they may instead have accepted the various assurances offered by the Leave campaign that trade would be unaffected; that the UK would remain part of a free trade area stretching from Iceland to Turkey; that the UK might join the EEA and therefore remain in the Single Market; etc etc..ThePanjandrum wrote: »Sorry, I don't understand your argument at all. Where do you get a) and b) from?
The conventional political wisdom that people who vote for something or someone are voting for the promises and assertions of the campaign in favour of that something or someone. Your argument is that Leave voters were motivated by the warnings of the Remain campaign; they voted Leave because they accepted the Remainers' warnings about the effect this would have on the UK's trading relationships. I think that's a bizarre argument; it's far more likely that they voted Leave because they accepted the assurances of the Leave campaign about how this would affect the UK, and it is those assurances for which the Brexit referendum creates a mandate.ThePanjandrum wrote: ». . . and what does your final paragraph relate to?0 -
I think Panjandrum is saying a bit more than this. He is saying that the Brexit campaign were lying charlatans. that Leave voters knew this at the time, did not accept their blandishments and assurances, knew that what was being dismissed as "Project Fear" was in fact truthful and accurate; and that nevertheless they mysteriously voted for Leave anyway for reasons which he does not explain.Wait a minute, aside from the fact that a "more distant relationship" does not necessarily mean " entirely out", the government was engaging in project fear. On the leave side absolutely no-one was talking about leaving the single market- indeed one of the architects of brexit specifically reinforced, emphasised and confirmed - repeatedly- that absolutely no-one was talking about leaving the single market.
Are you now saying that the Brexiters were and are lying charlatans and that we shouldn't listen to a word they say?0 -
TM has been told what to do and how to do it. It merely confirms that the EU have conceded that she's LINO (leader in name only) and that she cannot be trusted.
On a brighter note, suppliers of March 29th Brexit day celebration t shirts etc have gone, ah crap.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think this counts as a bone toss - everyone on the EU side said loud and clear starting weeks ago that the UK could have an extension to sort their sh!t out if they asked. May asked.Peregrinus wrote: »Yeah, but the EU is generally happy to toss them a bone.
BERLIN (Reuters) - If Britain asks for a delay to its departure from the European Union, none of the existing members will stand in its way, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Tuesday (Feb 19).
They did not toss her a bone, they tore up her homework, showed her how it should have been done, and then sent her home with a note for the adults, assuming there are any in Parliament.0 -
-
I remember when the EU said "This is the deal, no changes"
Now they have invited her to come back with something new.
I always interpreted that stance as "this is the deal based on the parameters you set down" - i.e. the red lines. If there was a shift to something a lot softer that looked like it could gain some real traction in parliament - some version of Norway for example, I'd imagine the EU would be willing to consider it. Granted, Norway would probably not be too happy, not least because they would not trust the UK not to turn up and s**t the bed on them but I think pragmatism would win the day on the EU side.0 -
It's a bone toss in the sense that just before the Council Macron was making noises suggesting that the UK should be denied any extension if they didn't have a plan. They came to the Council without a plan, but still got an extension, which enables Brexiters to claim that Macron CAVED, under PRESSURE from the Germans who we always said would come to our defence!!!!! in your face, Remainer losers!!!Zubeneschamali wrote: »I don't think this counts as a bone toss - everyone on the EU side said loud and clear starting weeks ago that the UK could have an extension to sort their sh!t out if they asked. May asked.
BERLIN (Reuters) - If Britain asks for a delay to its departure from the European Union, none of the existing members will stand in its way, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Tuesday (Feb 19).
They did not toss her a bone, they tore up her homework, showed her how it should have been done, and then sent her home with a note for the adults, assuming there are any in Parliament.
We have to give them this. It's little enough. Not perhaps a bone, but a fragment of a bone.0 -
0
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23659
Peregrinus wrote: »It's a bone toss in the sense that just before the Council Macron was making noises suggesting that the UK should be denied any extension if they didn't have a plan. They came to the Council without a plan, but still got an extension, which enables Brexiters to claim that Macron CAVED, under PRESSURE from the Germans who we always said would come to our defence!!!!! in your face, Remainer losers!!!
We have to give them this. It's little enough. Not perhaps a bone, but a fragment of a bone.
It's the smallest of bones ever. Gives the UK a whole extra 4 days to sort themselves out in the event of MV3 failing, and not a lot more than that even if they do agree.
Unless someone locks the doors to parliament and doesn't let them out for Easter then there will be two weeks of nothing happening.0 -
ThePanjandrum wrote: »I think that you'll find that they don't say that leaving the Single Market was on the ballot paper, however, if you read the leaflet distributed by the Government, which was meant to fulfil the EU's referendum guidance, you will see that voters were threatened several times with a more distant relationship with the Single Market. .
I am pretty certain that at the time there were several prominent leavers -Farage and Hannan were two for sure - who said that this was all Project Fear and that no-one was talking about losing access to the single market. Indeed Farage advocated a Norway style agreement more than once pre ref.0 -
Did the EU indicate that they were open to a long extension if MV3 fails? I definitely wouldn’t be voting for it now, as an MP, if that is the case.0
-
TM has been told what to do and how to do it. It merely confirms that the EU have conceded that she's LINO (leader in name only) and that she cannot be trusted.
I can't remember where I saw it, but someone, somewhere said LINO is the perfect name for May; hard to nail down but easy to walk over.0 -
Advertisement
-
If MV3 fails they UK has an extension until 12 April to come back with another plan. For practical reasons, that plan must include a further extension, so by implication the EU are saying they will consider a longer extension, if they like the plan.Did the EU indicate that they were open to a long extension if MV3 fails? I definitely wouldn’t be voting for it now, as an MP, if that is the case.
But the plan must not include any renegotiation of the WA, because that is not on offer.
So I think its a bit hasty to say that, as an MP, you wouldn't vote for the plan now.
You have to start by asking yourself what you actually want. If you want a general election, or a second referendum, it makes sense to at leaset consider voting against the deal, though you'll have to balance the risk that unlss you can persuade your colleagues that they too want these things, there'l be no plan, and a crash-out Brexit on 12 April.
On the other hand, if what you want is maybe something quite like the negotiated deal, but without the backstop, you're very very very unlikely to get that on 12 April, because the EU has already said that's not an acceptable plan. So voting against MV3 will deliver either a crash-out Brexit or an extension to implement a plan that you don't like. And you may dislike both of those things more than you dislike the negotiated deal.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement