Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

farmchoice

Peregrinus wrote: »

The British public won't get a choice. McVey's pitch is not to the public, but to the branch members of the Tory party who will have the final say in choosing a new leader.

ya everything that is being said is now aimed at paid up members of the tories, not tory voters or swing voters or any of the people a party would normally be wooing, just the hardcore party faithful.

all the candidates seem to think that they way to get their votes is going as hard Brexit as possible and i suppose they know best.


none of this changes a thing in parliament though. even if the next leader can get the DUP on side (and i have a feeling they wont support a no deal when it comes to it) there is the necessary number of tory MP who will vote against it.


now as we all know No deal is the default and it would take some extraordinary political maneuvers to force a meaningful vote to instruct the government to stop no deal happening. this very thing nearly happened before and one would assume Bercow would facilitate it happening again.


here is the scary part. dominic Rabb said when interviewed last week that as PM he would look for a way of stopping this happening or failing that ignore the vote. he effectively said that as PM he would be prepared to ignore parliament and push through a no deal exit.

no one batted an eye.

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peston recently pointed out a part of the extension agreement that seemingly has been missed in the UK (don't I recall it has been mentioned a number of times on here).

TM agreed that the extension could not involve any opening or renegotiation of the WA.

I say this here, not to point it out as I know mos ton here already know, but to point to the fact that none in the media ever bring it up in discussions with politicians in the UK.

Huw Edwards did, with Widdecombe the other night.

Leroy42

Did he, from my recollection of that interview he stated that the EU had said they wouldn't reopen it, which has been said since the agreement was made. But inherent in that is that TM is somehow simply not asking hard enough. (BTW I have no intention of putting myself through the duress of watching that again!)

My point being that there is a big difference between saying the EU have said they will not reopen the deal and pointing out that the terms of the extension specifically state that the deal cannot be reopened during the extension.

Edit - In saying that in the case of Brexit Party it wouldn't make any difference. In that interview Widdecombe stated they wanted to be part of the negotiations and also they wouldn't bother with any negotiations!

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did he, from my recollection of that interview he stated that the EU had said they wouldn't reopen it, which has been said since the agreement was made. But inherent in that is that TM is somehow simply not asking hard enough. (BTW I have no intention of putting myself through the duress of watching that again!)

My point being that there is a big difference between saying the EU have said they will not reopen the deal and pointing out that the terms of the extension specifically state that the deal cannot be reopened during the extension.

Edit - In saying that in the case of Brexit Party it wouldn't make any difference. In that interview Widdecombe stated they wanted to be part of the negotiations and also they wouldn't bother with any negotiations!

But it was also important that they should be key to negotiations as she opened up with. Which negotiations they were we never got to the bottom of.

Peregrinus

The point of the Brexit Party demanding to be put on the negotiating team would be so they could ensure that the team would not engage in any meaningful negotations. Bit like a vegan demanding to be made manager of an abattoir.

Leroy42

I see Corbyn has had his Damascus moment and come out to declare that any agreement should be put to the people in a Ref.

Quite clever really. The the Tories go with No Deal, that of course isn't an agreement and thus no 2nd ref. He knows the current deal will never get through now that TM is gone (if it ever had any change) so in effect he has said nothing.

Or I am being too cynical?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Corbyn has had his Damascus moment and come out to declare that any agreement should be put to the people in a Ref.

Quite clever really. The the Tories go with No Deal, that of course isn't an agreement and thus no 2nd ref. He knows the current deal will never get through now that TM is gone (if it ever had any change) so in effect he has said nothing.

Or I am being too cynical?

It took him long enough!

How long have we known that the Labour membership are overwhelmingly in favour of a People's Vote now? Many months by my reckoning.

I think you're right to be skeptical if not outright cynical. The only way this works at all is if he actually sticks to it and pressures May's successor. An election isn't on the horizon as far as I can tell.

I'll wait and see. He has form for prevaricating.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point of the Brexit Party demanding to be put on the negotiating team would be so they could ensure that the team would not engage in any meaningful negotations. Bit like a vegan demanding to be made manager of an abattoir.

That is harsh on vegans, you may have one who has made a health choice but is fine with others eating meat and who would be great at managing an abattoir...:D, maybe it is more like having an anti-meat campaigner in charge of an abattoir.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Corbyn has had his Damascus moment and come out to declare that any agreement should be put to the people in a Ref.

Quite clever really. The the Tories go with No Deal, that of course isn't an agreement and thus no 2nd ref. He knows the current deal will never get through now that TM is gone (if it ever had any change) so in effect he has said nothing.

Or I am being too cynical?

Well they have already voted multiple times to avoid no-deal and Labour has supported this. There is a way to get the deal through, if they attach the 2nd ref condition to it.

As for no-deal, you don't have to vote for it. It is still the default although parliament has shown multiple times that they are against it so they can put pressure on the government to avoid it. The last resort would be to put a motion of no-confidence against the government, but if the PM only states he will not go for a extension and it is less than 2 weeks before the deadline, there will be a no-deal as it will be up to the PM to request an extension and you cannot get a new leader in place in time to avert it.

Basically if the new PM is set on no-deal as a course it will either destroy the country or the Conservative Party. We know what happens if they succeed with delaying and having the country default to no-deal, but if parliament thwarts the PM and stops no-deal they will either have to resign or they will be removed as head of the Conservative Party. The Brexit Party will then be able to shout louder than ever about betrayal and will take more voted from the Conservatives which will allow Labour and the Libdems to sweep up seats.

In some bizarre way it is fascinating to watch the implosion of a party, I just wish the stakes for us wasn't that big.

Joe_ Public

I see Lab have kicked Alastair Campbell out of the party for voting Lib Dem. Fair enough in that it's clearly against their membership rules, but why then didn't they take action against Margaret Hodge last week when she advocated lab voters to do the same thing? Smacks of double standards.

An Claidheamh

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I see Lab have kicked Alastair Campbell out of the party for voting Lib Dem. Fair enough in that it's clearly against their membership rules, but why then didn't they take action against Margaret Hodge last week when she advocated lab voters to do the same thing? Smacks of double standards.

Who do they think Kate Hoey votes for?

Or did they not think to kick her out of the party when she was photographed with terrorists, the orange order, gallivanting with Brexit xenophobes?

No standards

Joe_ Public

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Who do they think Kate Hoey votes for?

Or did they not think to kick her out of the party when she was photographed with terrorists, the orange order, gallivanting with Brexit xenophobes?

No standards

Of course, they're all over the place. The reason, i surmise, they didn't take action against Hodge is that she is of Jewish heritage and that's just a place they can't go any further than they've already gone at the moment. Campbell is just a soft target with all the blairite baggage he brings. As regards Hoey, i think they just try to close their eyes and forget she actually exists.

eire4

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Corbyn has had his Damascus moment and come out to declare that any agreement should be put to the people in a Ref.

Quite clever really. The the Tories go with No Deal, that of course isn't an agreement and thus no 2nd ref. He knows the current deal will never get through now that TM is gone (if it ever had any change) so in effect he has said nothing.

Or I am being too cynical?

No I don't think your being too cynical at all and are probably very close to the mark. Corbyn needed something to save his own hide as well given the beating Labour took.

Shelga

Jeremy Hunt said on the radio this morning that he wouldn’t advocate a no-deal exit for his leadership campaign- because it would destroy the Tory party.

He pretended he, personally, wouldn’t have an issue with it, but it would wreck the Conservatives.

Never mind the fact that it is economic suicide for the UK.

Party before country, always, always.

Water John

I'd say that's a bit transparent. He knows what damage it would do to the country, but dressing it up for the members of the Tory party.

Shelga

Water John wrote: »

I'd say that's a bit transparent. He knows what damage it would do to the country, but dressing it up for the members of the Tory party.

Who even cares anymore. I wouldn’t trust anyone from the Tories as far as I could throw them.

robinph

farmchoice wrote: »

here is the scary part. dominic Rabb said when interviewed last week that as PM he would look for a way of stopping this happening or failing that ignore the vote. he effectively said that as PM he would be prepared to ignore parliament and push through a no deal exit.

no one batted an eye.

I would hope that if the PM ignored the will of parliament at the last moment that a letter from 320 other MP's to the EU saying "please wait a moment before kicking us out, we just have to have a bit of a coup and we'll be back again shortly once we've dealt with this idiot" would be accepted and the EU would just leave things as they are for a bit longer.

Enzokk

What is happening at Labour? As others posted before Alistair Campbell was suspended because he said he voted for the Libdems after the election. He did not advise others to vote for them nor did he tell people he would vote for them before the election.

Now granted the rules do say that if you vote or support another party or cause you will be suspended, so the question is what will they do to Margaret Hodge?

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/1133373903403999232

Vote for a pro-EU party, not mine, says Labour’s Dame Margaret Hodge

Jeremy Corbyn’s row with Dame Margaret Hodge escalated last night after the MP said party members should vote for pro-EU candidates in the European elections, even if it means not voting for Labour.

Hodge has clashed often with the Labour leader on his handling of anti-semitism and his approach to Brexit.

At an event last week hosted by Progress, the Blairite think tank, Hodge was asked if she agreed with a panellist who dismissed tactical voting and said all members should vote Labour in the upcoming contest.

A leaked tape reveals the 74-year-old Barking MP responded: “No, I don’t.”

She said: “I think taking whatever action you need, within your locality, that gives you the best likelihood of electing somebody who will be a pro-European MEP, I think is the way you should go, I really do.”

The problem is not the rule, the problem is the enforcement of the rule and I suspect that a lot of Labour members may just now declare that they voted for another party to see if they will get expelled as well. This will also open questions about Kate Hoey who has appeared with Farage supporting Brexit at events which seems just as much against the rules but nothing has happened to her.

Then we have the following tweets which just about sums it up I think,

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1133339190370996224

Professor Moriarty

Shelga wrote: »

Who even cares anymore. I wouldn’t trust anyone from the Tories as far as I could throw them.

I agree for the most part. However, Rory Stewart is an intriguing person who seems to have a lot of integrity. A quality that is quite rare in the Tory party.

Peregrinus

Maybe it's cynical on my part, but I can't avoid the suspicion that they have decided to enforce this rule against Campbell at this point in time because they know it will create an almighty fuss which they hope will distract from the days other Labour-related news, which is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an investigation under s. 20 of the Equality Act 2006 into the Labour Party "over whether the party has unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish".

This is quite a big deal. The only party to have been similarly investigated by the EHRC, SFAIK, is the BNP, so Labour is in some fairly unsavoury company. Under s. 20, the EHRC can only launch a formal investigation when they already suspect that a person or organisation hss committed offences under the Equality Act. EHRC has been making preliminary enquries about this since March, and has obviously reached a point where, yes, they now suspect that the Labour Party has committed offences.

We will hear more about this in due time, I suspect.

Shelga

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree for the most part. However, Rory Stewart is an intriguing person who seems to have a lot of integrity. A quality that is quite rare in the Tory party.

But then why is he in the Tory party? Similarly with Michael Heseltine, who seems like a decent man of principle.

Anna Soubry said when she defected that the Tory party was now being run by the ERG. With every passing week, it becomes clear that she was right.

People should start revoking their memberships if they are really people of principle, as this party is now infected with an extreme right-wing cancer that will not be excised any time soon.

Professor Moriarty

Shelga wrote: »

But then why is he in the Tory party? Similarly with Michael Heseltine, who seems like a decent man of principle.

Anna Soubry said when she defected that the Tory party was now being run by the ERG. With every passing week, it becomes clear that she was right.

People should start revoking their memberships if they are really people of principle, as this party is now infected with an extreme right-wing cancer that will not be excised any time soon.

Not every Tory is a Far Right Eurosceptic. It could be argued that Stewart and his ilk need to stay and fight the "right-wing cancer" from within.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe it's cynical on my part, but I can't avoid the suspicion that they have decided to enforce this rule against Campbell at this point in time because they know it will create an almighty fuss which they hope will distract from the days other Labour-related news, which is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has launched an investigation under s. 20 of the Equality Act 2006 into the Labour Party "over whether the party has unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish".

This is quite a big deal. The only party to have been similarly investigated by the EHRC, SFAIK, is the BNP, so Labour is in some fairly unsavoury company. Under s. 20, the EHRC can only launch a formal investigation when they already suspect that a person or organisation hss committed offences under the Equality Act. EHRC has been making preliminary enquries about this since March, and has obviously reached a point where, yes, they now suspect that the Labour Party has committed offences.

We will hear more about this in due time, I suspect.

That could be right and would explain why they haven't touched Margaret Hodge when she has broken the rules to a bigger degree. It would look terribly bad if you expel someone who has openly clashed with your leader over antisemitism soon after the announcement of the investigation you mention.

On the other hand, I don't think the Labour Party is that smart/diabolical or they would have avoided the election result. The polls has been there to show a clear position would mean they pick up support, and yet they have gone the opposite way almost every time. That doesn't shout a party that is so forward thinking to create one drama to overshadow another, it just tells me they did this to get rid of Campbell because he has been a thorn in Corbyn's side and this was a easy way to do it.

Labour would have a 27% lead if it was unambiguously pro-Remain, polling finds

The research. published by Remain United utilising the expertise of Electoral Calculus and new polling from ComRes, predicts that with no change to its position on Brexit, Labour would win only 20 seats in the EU Elections, with the Brexit Party taking 28, six for the Conservatives, and 11 for the Lib Dems.

But, if Labour were to come out with an unambiguously pro-Remain position which involved backing Remain in a second referendum, its seat share would rise dramatically to 35 out of the total of 70 - overtaking the Brexit Party's who would return just 23 MEPs.

jmayo

Leroy42 wrote: »

At least the likes of Chukka had the balls to walk away from Labour. Surely the likes of Starmer, Thornberry etc need to actively quit if Corbyn is unwilling to move until the next conference.

How can they continue to support their party when the party is taking the wrong choice over the most series political issue of their lives?

Actually Thornberry was on BBC late night election show the other night and was adamant about another referendum.
For all the world it looked like she was speaking out against her leader.

No more than the Tories you can't have a functioning party when high ranking members are at cross purposes to the leadership.
Something has to give.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah it is deeply worrying in terms of the union itself. Scotland is the clearest sign of it, but depending on the Brexit itself NI may soon become a factor and clearly with England their is a clear gap opening up.

And that should be the bit that is most worrying, even for the likes of the Brexit Party. They like to claim, as does JRM, that what price sovereignty, but clearly the survival of the union itself could be the cost.

Is that, along with the clear economic costs with even the BP don't deny, really a price worth paying?

Some people have actually been commenting for sometime how there has been a rise in English nationalism over the last decade or more.
And these same ones view EU sceptically at the very least.
In fact research was done on this back in 2013 long before that gombeen decided to hold the referendum.

A lot of English people see themselves as English and not British anymore.
Being British was fine when it meant you had something to crow about, ala the Empire.

A lot of English people couldn't care less if Northern Ireland and even Scotland was floated off into the wide blue yonder.

ToBeFrank123

So what will Gove or Boris get from Brussels that May couldn't?

We know Brexit is going to be allowed tick down to October 31st either due to incompetence or deliberately.

Would Boris really walk away without a deal?

October will be another month of "who blinks first".

Shelga

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not every Tory is a Far Right Eurosceptic. It could be argued that Stewart and his ilk need to stay and fight the "right-wing cancer" from within.

Yes, this is true. I personally would be ashamed to be associated with the Conservatives these days. But I’m not Rory Stewart.

Staying and fighting it is not the easier choice, for sure.

Enzokk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So what will Gove or Boris get from Brussels that May couldn't?

We know Brexit is going to be allowed tick down to October 31st either due to incompetence or deliberately.

Would Boris really walk away without a deal?

October will be another month of "who blinks first".

I think the chance of no-deal is enhanced due to the circumstances of the events. There will be no further negotiations because the EU will be in the process of resetting after the elections. Tusk will be replaced and Juncker as well. That means there will be nobody to do the negotiations with in any case and it is probably why the EU chose the 31st October date. They knew even if the UK asked this would be their excuse on why they couldn't have any further negotiations.

They gave the UK the time to pass the deal and then pass the legislation, but it seems the UK has taken this as a sign that it is more time to get a new deal. I am sure, after watching the documentary following Verhofstadt during the negotiations that the EU will be fully aware of what could happen. I think they would have hopefully prepared as well for the risk that this would happen and to be prepared for no-deal as well. It has given us a further 6 months to prepare.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

I think the chance of no-deal is enhanced due to the circumstances of the events. There will be no further negotiations because the EU will be in the process of resetting after the elections. Tusk will be replaced and Juncker as well. That means there will be nobody to do the negotiations with in any case and it is probably why the EU chose the 31st October date. They knew even if the UK asked this would be their excuse on why they couldn't have any further negotiations.

They gave the UK the time to pass the deal and then pass the legislation, but it seems the UK has taken this as a sign that it is more time to get a new deal. I am sure, after watching the documentary following Verhofstadt during the negotiations that the EU will be fully aware of what could happen. I think they would have hopefully prepared as well for the risk that this would happen and to be prepared for no-deal as well. It has given us a further 6 months to prepare.

Seven days ago, I posted these odds on the Brexit thread:

Odds on Britain leaving with no deal in 2019 are 7/2. Odds on Britain not leaving without deal in 2019 (extension, revoke, agreement) are 1/5.

Today, the odds are:

Odds on Britain leaving with no deal in 2019 are 2/1. Odds on Britain not leaving without no deal in 2019 (extension, revoke, agreement) are 1/3.

farmchoice

i wonder do the Brits have a say in the upcoming elections for the various positions in the commission, i suppose they would have to. could they use this to their advantage?

on reflection its hard to see who they can becuase in effect have a caretaker PM!!!

Water John

I'd say TM could say what she likes at their dinner this evening and nobody would be paying her any heed.

serfboard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Rory Stewart is an intriguing person who seems to have a lot of integrity.

With the removal of Teresa May, the Tories have gotten rid of the symptom, but not the disease of delusion.

Unfortunately Rory Stewart has it as well. I listened to him on Pieenar's Politics (Sunday Mornings on BBC R5 @ 10 - Podcast here). He comes across as a lot better than a lot of the rest of them (he mentioned Nancy Pelosi's "Don't even think about it" comment, which I was quite impressed with), but he still suffers from the delusion that when(if) he is PM he is going to go back to the EU and renogiate a deal and have it done by October 31st.

Crazy stuff, but all the rest of the Tories suffer from the same delusion.