Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't recall if they stipulated a specific month. I think the point might have been that they won't just grant extensions willy nilly simply to allow the Tories to continue their internecine internal squabbling.
(...)

You're right, and it was my imperfect recollection: at the time of granting the October extension, the European Council said in the same PR note that it would review progress about the UK/Brexit at its June meeting.

I wrongly amalgamated that with the actual condition that the UK had to either run EU elections by 26 May, or leave on 1st June.

Carry on

robinph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...
Afterwards the HoC would be hopping mad, and say Boris was in contempt - but that didn't stop May, and the Brexiteers would be having street parties up and down the country - Boris would be a hero (to half the population).

Hero to a 30% of the 37% who voted last week possibly, which is significantly less than half of the country.

Enzokk

Sabine Weyand is taking over as Director General of Trade at the EU. This is good for the EU as she was deputy chief negotiator under Barnier so will be totally up to date of the progress made so far.

https://twitter.com/GeorginaEWright/status/1133675732608212992

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

But what question are you asking on the ballot paper? What options are you providing?

You could probably have a referendum on that question alone!

For me, it should be May's deal vs Remain. No deal on the ballot won't get through Parliament if the indicative votes are anything to go by.

CelticRambler

Been out of the loop for a while, but caught an interview this morning on Sky with Richard Tice of the Brexit Party. A real stream of WTF? unicornism, and despite Adam Boulton's challenging him on just about every point (WTO, easiest deal ever, Irish Border, 39bn, etc, etc.) yer man just steamrolled on, slaloming from one nonsensenical declaration to the next. (Can a steamroller slalom?)

This does seem to be the Brexiteers' basic operating system - politicians and civilians alike - so it's hard to make a case for journalists being biased or not being aggressive enough or allowing too much wiggle-room when the interviewee is sitting in a parallel universe.

jmayo

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Article 24 makes it very possible and any poker player will tell you it would lead to a winning hand for the UK. What makes you think it will fail?

Ehh I think Enzokk more than covered it.

The whole idea that UK could trade under GATT Article 24 with no restrictions on trade with EU would also mean they would have to trade likewise with all other countries, as otherwise they would contravene WTO’s Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rule.

That means zero tariffs on everything and the EU could not reciprocate unless they give zero tariffs on imports from everywhere.

I think the ‘Malthouse Compromise’ was much like all the other Brexiters proposals, having your cake and eating it basically.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Fundamentally, Brexiteers are and have always promised something that cannot be delivered, a turn back in time. Suez was a warning shot, this time it's going to be messy. Morons and chancers promising unicorns will in the end get badly burned. Sign up to the WA now or have it rammed down their throat down the road.
...

One can see the delusion every week on Question Time.
They simply do not seem to have a fecking clue how the world has moved on and the days of Britain being a global superpower are long gone. They may still have the nukes but the day is gone where they could strike fear into other nations and the economic powerhouse is now an illusion.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

EU was fine 20 years ago. Nobody wanted or asked for further intergration. I like the new EU memebr states but it should just be a free trade area with common standards. They got greedy and meglomaniac and now it must be dismantled.

Whilst I agree that project EU has being going too far, and I think Brexit and some issues has woken EU hierarchy up somewhat as to what ordinary people really want, what Britain is doing is lunacy.

They simply do not have a plan.
They thought they could leave the club, but still have all the advantages of being in it without any of the obligations.
It is childish in the extreme.

If the British were somewhat clever they could have formed a block within to reform or block federalisation of EU, but no they think they still can call the shots and arrogantly think they are better than Johnny Foreigners.

It is like a bad episode of Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey was replaced by a combination of Dell Boy and Alf Garnett. :rolleyes:

Enzokk

And to present the other side of WTF and nonsensical statement, here is Ian Lavery writing on what he thinks Labour should do.

Forget a second referendum, Labour should focus on bringing the country together

Polls in the run-up to the European elections showed that voters did not understand Labour’s position on Brexit. Conference had voted to leave all options on the table to stop a destructive Tory Brexit and our position has been fairly straightforward. However, with emotions running high on all sides, it has been difficult to hold the line, with remainers and leavers all expressing opinions publicly. Labour lost voters in all directions and polling appears to show middle-class voters moving to the Lib Dems and Greens, with working-class people moving to the Brexit party.

As someone who has opposed a so-called public vote, not least because parliament has no majority for it in principle and nobody has the faintest idea what we would actually put on the ballot, I have been doggedly attacked by certain sections of the party, as well as those on the outside. It does feel that a certain portion of “leftwing intellectuals” are sneering at ordinary people and piling on those trying to convey the feelings of hundreds of thousands of Labour voters. Perhaps, in reflecting on the results, we should consider the effect all of this has had.

We’d do well to remember that Labour is an internationalist party of social and economic justice, not a party of leave or remain, and that the real divide in our country is between the haves and the have-nots. We cannot win a general election by simply fighting for the biggest share of 48% and, while some polling data suggests more people left Labour for the Greens and the Lib Dems, it is equally concerning to see leakage to the Brexit party. Remember, we not only need to hold on to what we got in 2017, but we need to win over even more people.

He basically goes on to state that the people voted for Brexit and they should deliver on the result (sounds familiar). His last paragraph I find the most head scratching to be honest.

So, to anyone who thinks no deal would be a disaster, particularly under a Tory government, stop the sneering attacks on those who want to see democracy respected. Stop the sniping and get squarely behind Jeremy Corbyn and a radical, redistributive Labour party that can bring the country together and build a future that is fair for all.

So the Labour party policy is that ALL options are on the table, except stopping Brexit it seems. He is arguing hard to stop Labour backing a second referendum because they are not just a leave or remain party, but a party for all. You have to wonder what he is smoking if the past 2 elections weren't an indication. At this rate if the likes of Lavery is left in charge of Labour policy you will see the Libdems and Brexit party as the 2 biggest in the country.

Leroy42

But even if Art24 was a thing (it isn't) it is an agreement between the two parties. Why would the EU give up everything in their agreement to end up with nothing? Those advocating for Art24 seem to think that the EU, after all this time, will simply throw out the WA and give up on everything such as the Backstop, border, citizens rights simply because the UK asked them.

What is possibly in it for the EU?

devnull

Enzokk wrote: »

And to present the other side of WTF and nonsensical statement, here is Ian Lavery writing on what he thinks Labour should do.

Basically he's saying what we already know though.

The Labour Party would like Brexit to go away so they can start talking about other things.

They are not interest in Brexit, it is just something getting in the way of everything else that they want to talk about, hence why they want to talk about the haves and the have nots rather than leavers and those who want to remain.

They'll sit on the fence as long as the can and deflect.

Stop moaning ffs

So Sabine the machine has been made head of the EUs trade division.
Best of luck to the UK team if they ever do get to the table for those meetings.

Laois_Man

CelticRambler wrote: »

Been out of the loop for a while, but caught an interview this morning on Sky with Richard Tice of the Brexit Party. A real stream of WTF? unicornism, and despite Adam Boulton's challenging him on just about every point (WTO, easiest deal ever, Irish Border, 39bn, etc, etc.) yer man just steamrolled on, slaloming from one nonsensenical declaration to the next. (Can a steamroller slalom?)

This is that interview

I am utterly confused that the party who wants "No Deal" is dying to be involved in the negotiations of the deal they don't want - even if we ignore the small fact that there are no negotiations pending!

jmayo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Been out of the loop for a while, but caught an interview this morning on Sky with Richard Tice of the Brexit Party. A real stream of WTF? unicornism, and despite Adam Boulton's challenging him on just about every point (WTO, easiest deal ever, Irish Border, 39bn, etc, etc.) yer man just steamrolled on, slaloming from one nonsensenical declaration to the next. (Can a steamroller slalom?)

This does seem to be the Brexiteers' basic operating system - politicians and civilians alike - so it's hard to make a case for journalists being biased or not being aggressive enough or allowing too much wiggle-room when the interviewee is sitting in a parallel universe.

He speaks about bringing in Brexit party members into the negotiating process, because you know they have business people who know how to negotiate.

If they are anything like him they are going to be useless.

And just because the people did not believe in "project fear" there is nothing to worry about in economic terms come Nov 1st. :rolleyes:

Jaysus the delusion is strong in this one.

listermint

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

This is the first I’ve ever heard of this man. And some on twitter saying he’s one to watch. Yet he seems to be under the same delusion as the rest of them.
It’s really looking like they all just want the job and are either uniaware or don’t care about the consequences

https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/status/1133644854985134080?s=21

Why wouldnt you want the job though ?

Take the job, get your name on Prime Minister role, Live in Number 10. Take the Salary, and then the PM's pension and leave asap.

Its quids in for anyone that takes it, What you do whilst there doesnt really matter. ££££

devnull

Laois_Man wrote: »

This is that interview

I am utterly confused that the party who wants "No Deal" is dying to be involved in the negotiations of the deal they don't want - even if we ignore the small fact that there are no negotiations pending!

They want to torpedo any chance of getting a deal from the inside to make No Deal more likely I would think is their motivation.

listermint

devnull wrote: »

They want to torpedo any chance of getting a deal from the inside to make No Deal more likely I would think is their motivation.

Their sole motivation is to devastate the country and make profit off whats left over.

The electorate are utter morons if they cant see through this rich populated party with clear and definitive profits to be made off the Carcas of the UK.

In a way, Its imperialistic hilarity.

Enzokk

devnull wrote: »

Basically he's saying what we already know though.

The Labour Party would like Brexit to go away so they can start talking about other things.

They are not interest in Brexit, it is just something getting in the way of everything else that they want to talk about, hence why they want to talk about the haves and the have nots rather than leavers and those who want to remain.

They'll sit on the fence as long as the can and deflect.

They are not the only one though, the Tories would have liked to get done with Brexit as well. If Brexit was delivered on the 29th March then you would not have seen such terrible results in the local elections. Yes the Tories would have lost more than their fair share, but that would have been expected after 9 years in power. But I am sure Labour would have made massive gains instead of losing just a few seats.

The first warning was the local elections and you had the pronouncements that somehow the people just want to get on with Brexit. The next warning, and a proper warning from Labour voters, was the EU elections. I cannot understand how polling warned them that this would happen before. Sure there were other polls stating they would lose if they backed a 2nd referendum, but they have now backed neither and they were warned that their current stance will lose them votes. They lose votes but the thinking is to keep calm and carry on?

I think it is no coincidence that you see the likes of Lavery piping up now and the some of the defenders of Lexit also coming out to tell people not to forget the leave vote. They have invested in that course and it will be hard, if not impossible to change their minds. Labour needs to get rid of those that advocated for this nonsensical middle of the road policy. They did it against the wishes of their members and their voters has made them pay. If they aren't careful they will lose the next election and they will also lose their chance to change the Labour party to a more left wing party as they will be removed.

Shelga

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/29/labour-chair-peoples-vote-backers-sneering-ordinary-people-ian-lavery

What if you're a small business owner who does lots of trade with the EU, and you're not sneering, more like you're absolutely terrified of being forced into a no-deal Brexit by one third of the electorate? Who couldn't care less about you?

Why do we all have to tippy-toe around a third of the electorate who actively want to destroy the economy?

bob mcbob

The SNP is now progressing with plans for a indyref2 next year. This has to be approved by westminster so it looks like the new PM is going to have a few challenges.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/29/scotland-publishes-second-independence-referendum-bill

The quote in the article that really struck me was -

The Scottish Conservatives accused Sturgeon of “pandering to her party, not speaking for the country”.

That is off the scale in hypocrisy.

ambro25

devnull wrote: »

Boris has now been summoned to court over alleged EU referendum misconduct

Believed to be mostly about the claims on the side of the bus and the remarks he made during the campaign.

Although you can quite frankly seeing him use this to boost his campaign rather than it for to be damaged, he'll just campaign on the basis that everyone is out to get him etc.

Now, what's the betting on which side primed this private prosecution of Boris?

The strong likelihood is that it was all ready to go for months, if not longer, but with the big red 'Court' button to be pressed only in the event that the PM slot opened and that Boris would run for it.

I'm thinking moderate Conservatives. They have form for knifing in the back.

If it is Gove's doing, it would be the height of irony

ambro25

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Can’t see Macron going for that.

Macron would do the same "I'll hold my nose whilst consenting" routine as before.

Paris La Défense hasn't filled up with as many HNW Brexodees as planned yet, he still has the same vested interest in keeping the charade going.

robinph

ambro25 wrote: »

Now, what's the betting on which side primed this private prosecution of Boris?

The strong likelihood is that it was all ready to go for months, if not longer, but with the big red 'Court' button to be pressed only in the event that the PM slot opened and that Boris would run for it.

I'm thinking moderate Conservatives. They have form for knifing in the back.

If it is Gove's doing, it would be the height of irony

It would need some serious behind the scenes conspiracy theorising and manipulation to manage to get the courts schedule to coincide with the week after an unplanned EU election and unexpected PM resignation the day after. I seriously doubt they could manage that and also ensure that all the people involved in arranging it as a coverup are on board with keeping quiet about it as well.


Now the Alistair Cambell getting thrown out of the Labour Party in order to take headlines away from the ruling going against the party on the anti-semitism case is much easier to believe and manage as the Labour party just need to sit on the expulsion as they knew some bad news was headed their way.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

It would need some serious behind the scenes conspiracy theorising and manipulation to manage to get the courts schedule to coincide with the week after an unplanned EU election and unexpected PM resignation the day after. I seriously doubt they could manage that and also ensure that all the people involved in arranging it as a coverup are on board with keeping quiet about it as well.


Now the Alistair Cambell getting thrown out of the Labour Party in order to take headlines away from the ruling going against the party on the anti-semitism case is much easier to believe and manage as the Labour party just need to sit on the expulsion as they knew some bad news was headed their way.

You can see the ruling here, along with the dates that various things happened since 20th February this year:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ball-v-Johnson-FV-290519.pdf

Sam Russell

The HoC managed to get a law passed making the No Deal option unlawful bfore the EPP elelections, so they can do it again. They got it passed the HoC and the HoL and fully processed despite the Tory Lords trying to talk it out by a filibuster.

So if it can be done once, it can be done again. If this time they could make such a law not time limited, and so remove No Deal Brexit impossible. They could also pass a law to revoke Art 50, and so force the PM to send the letter.

54and56

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You could probably have a referendum on that question alone!

For me, it should be May's deal vs Remain. No deal on the ballot won't get through Parliament if the indicative votes are anything to go by.

Wouldn't it be possible to have a three way PR type referendum where you listed your preferences between:-

1. Remain

2. The WA Agreement

3. No Deal / WTO.

If option 1 has more voted than options 2 + 3 combined Art 50 is revoked and Brexit is binned a la Bobby Ewing dreaming about JR being shot but if the combined votes for options 2 + 3 exceed option 1 then Remain is discarded and whichever of options 2 & 3 got the most votes is carried forward without any further input from the HoC.

Would such a proposal not only allow an informed decision to be made by the electorate but it would once and for all remove any interpretation of same from the hands of MP's and finally bring a conclusion the the Go / No Go Brexit decision?

ancapailldorcha

54&56 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be possible to have a three way PR type referendum where you listed your preferences between:-

1. Remain

2. The WA Agreement

3. No Deal / WTO.

If option 1 has more voted than options 2 + 3 combined Art 50 is revoked and Brexit is binned a la Bobby Ewing dreaming about JR being shot but if the combined votes for options 2 + 3 exceed option 1 then Remain is discarded and whichever of options 2 & 3 got the most votes is carried forward without any further input from the HoC.

Would such a proposal not only allow an informed decision to be made by the electorate but it would once and for all remove any interpretation of same from the hands of MP's and finally bring a conclusion the the Go / No Go Brexit decision?

Possibly. The issue is that you're splitting the leave vote. I can't that anyone voting Remain would vote either of the other two options as second preference. Also, the No to AV campaign from 2011 did a fairly solid job of poisoning the well when it comes to PR or AV.

I do like your idea but I can see there being significant problems even in the conceptualization stage. For instance, a lot of people here were told that someone who wins less than the majority of votes can win the seat they are running in.

It would ultimately be a disaster of catastrophic proportions if the crashout option was on the ballot. Few MP's would have the courage to actually vote for this to be on the ballot card.

robinph

54&56 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be possible to have a three way PR type referendum where you listed your preferences between:-

1. Remain

2. The WA Agreement

3. No Deal / WTO.

If option 1 has more voted than options 2 + 3 combined Art 50 is revoked and Brexit is binned a la Bobby Ewing dreaming about JR being shot but if the combined votes for options 2 + 3 exceed option 1 then Remain is discarded and whichever of options 2 & 3 got the most votes is carried forward without any further input from the HoC.

Would such a proposal not only allow an informed decision to be made by the electorate but it would once and for all remove any interpretation of same from the hands of MP's and finally bring a conclusion the the Go / No Go Brexit decision?

Couldn't do the adding options 2 + 3 to discount option 1 version of things.

If you have 40% remain, 20%WA and 25% WTO, but if just 6% of the remainers selected WA as their 2nd choice least worst option then it should be that rather than nodeal/ WTO.

A Dub in Glasgo

bob mcbob wrote: »

The SNP is now progressing with plans for a indyref2 next year. This has to be approved by westminster so it looks like the new PM is going to have a few challenges.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/29/scotland-publishes-second-independence-referendum-bill

The quote in the article that really struck me was -

The Scottish Conservatives accused Sturgeon of “pandering to her party, not speaking for the country”.

That is off the scale in hypocrisy.

The Tories will continue to refuse

Some belters from the Tories in Scotland previously yet the media give them a feee pass

Tompkins, the spokesperson referenced above

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Tories will continue to refuse

Some belters from the Tories in Scotland previously yet the media give them a feee pass

Tompkins, the spokesperson referenced above

Your probably right they will continue to refuse in the short term. But if and when brexit actually does come to pass they will only be delaying the inevitable.

eagle eye

This is the UK not Ireland. You don't get another referendum because some people want one. The European elections didn't show that the majority want to stay.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

This is the UK not Ireland. You don't get another referendum because some people want one. The European elections didn't show that the majority want to stay.

It also didn't show that the majority wanted to leave.