Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still of far greater significance than an opinion poll. People understood they were giving a mandate to politicians to remain or leave the EU.

They weren't just voting for the craic.

It doesn't matter really what the people thought though, legally the referendum was nothing more than a big opinion poll. If the government went against the result and they are sued by Farage or any Brexiteer, the government will win because the referendum result was not binding. It doesn't matter what who said, if it is not legislated for then it doesn't matter. Ask Johnson that and his claims about proroguing or most of his cabinet.

farmchoice

i know its becoming a mantra of mine at this stage but
johnson desperately needs an election and he needs it to be forced on him by the opposition.

without a change to parliamentary arithmetic he can pass nothing, on brexit or anything else. everything he has done so far is to A. make himself seem acceptable to the Brexit party voters and B.force the opposition into going for a VONC and an election. what he wants to avoid is any sort of legislative move by Parliament that forces him into anything (extension request for example) as this will whip the carpet from under him with the brexit party types and he is Theresa may mark II without the morals or decency.

so now he has resorted to proroging parliament and on top of that actually threatening to simply ignore anything parliament may pass.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Staying in a Customs Union including more than likely free movement of people was always going to be a tough sell by any PM who would struggle to get it through the HoC.

Abiding by rules you have no say or input into was going to be difficult to accept. Its not really leaving the EU. Its like staying in the EU but not having any power in the EU, a worse fate than actually staying in the EU for those who wanted to take back power. It would render the HoC a rubber stamping parliament for EU rules and I can't see the majority accepting that in the HoC. Like I said a tough sell.

Abiding by rules you have no say in is brexit. No matter what form it takes. Even hard brexit. The world of so called 'free' trade deals for an isolated UK would be as rule takers in all but the smallest and least valuable FTAs.

Even their WTO schedule is being objected to on various grounds that leave them a prisoner to the whims of any of 163 different countries. And any concession they make for one, could start a further avalanche of 'issues' with others.

They need to face up to this, but don't have the political will to do so.

ToBeFrank123

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The backstop with the process to review is the fudge. The border cannot become a bargaining chip in trade talks which is why any time limit implies that it can be. To give here, crossing red lines means giving at Dover Calais. Such would be unacceptable to France. It comes back to this outdated thinking that the big boys decide things while the smaller ones fall into line. The whole point of the EU with common rules and seats at the table for all PMs of member states is the opposite, deliberately, for what reigned in Europe before (and all those wars with different groups manoeuvring for power).

It is up to the UK to come to a solution, given they're the ones leaving and want a deal with the larger remaining bloc.

I think something like that was agreed back in March between the EU and May. The UK Attorney General advised it still didn't give enough legal guarantees the UK could leave the backstop unilaterally. This was enough to swing the vote to another defeat in the HoC.

Hence the reason for a clear legally guaranteed timeline for exiting the backstop, probably after a referendum on the issue or something like that.

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

Stop moaning ffs

Parse that

https://twitter.com/bbcvickiyoung/status/1168484101604741120?s=21

ToBeFrank123

Enzokk wrote: »

It doesn't matter really what the people thought though, legally the referendum was nothing more than a big opinion poll. If the government went against the result and they are sued by Farage or any Brexiteer, the government will win because the referendum result was not binding. It doesn't matter what who said, if it is not legislated for then it doesn't matter. Ask Johnson that and his claims about proroguing or most of his cabinet.

I don't agree with Johnson on much, but I agree that not to respect referendum results would fundamentally undermine credibility in UK politics.

No-one would bother voting again or there'd be p*ss poor turnout in future referenda or elections. "Why bother, they will only ignore the outcome", would be what people say.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I don't agree with Johnson on much, but I agree that not to respect referendum results would fundamentally undermine credibility in UK politics.

No-one would bother voting again or there'd be p*ss poor turnout in future referenda or elections. "Why bother, they will only ignore the outcome", would be what people say.

What part of the ref result did the backstop go against? On what basis had the ERG and Johnson got to not vote for it?

ToBeFrank123

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No backstop has no mandate in Europe and is a thick blood red line, is what escapes brexiters.

Why brexiters do not respect the will of Irish and European people?

You'll have to phrase this better if you want a reply as its not making sense.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think something like that was agreed back in March between the EU and May. The UK Attorney General advised it still didn't give enough legal guarantees the UK could leave the backstop unilaterally. This was enough to swing the vote to another defeat in the HoC.

Hence the reason for a clear legally guaranteed timeline for exiting the backstop, probably after a referendum on the issue or something like that.

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

That's because the all-UK backstop is unacceptable to those who want the UK to have a free hand in making their own trade deals. Which is fair enough as far as that goes. But it's not up to us to square the circle caused by the inability of the UK government to control a majority in the HoC. Leaving aside the difficulty in 'selling' a brexit that could match the extravagant promises of the leave campaign, a NI only backstop would have been a more saleable proposition for a government that didn't rely on the DUP for their majority.

J Mysterio

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Firstly I don't think you understand what a Hard Brexit is and how it applies to Ireland.

Secondly I don't think you have accepted the UK voted to leave the EU, fully and entirely.

When you are ready to accept this second part I'm willing to discuss this with you ie when you are ready to accept facts and not deal with fantasys, what ifs and if onlys.

No one should be 'ready to accept' that vote as the basis for the scandalous carry on of the UK government. How you can defend this mania is beyond me.

The vote itself should be under full investigation for outside interference from foreign powers, fraud, illegal funding, illegal overspends, illegal influencing of voters on social media, illegal handling of information and outright fabrications designed to mislead.

These things will only happen in earnest after the fact, when the most damage is fully delivered. The UK apparatus cant even process this as its so fully engaged in tearing itself asunder.

trellheim

If I recall there are not many in the current UK Cabinet who have not voted for the backstop at one point or another.

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

What part of the ref result did the backstop go against? On what basis had the ERG and Johnson got to not vote for it?

Corbyn, SNP, DUP, and several more voted against it.

Had Corbyn or SNP voted for it, happy days. But you just keep ignoring this. Why?

Here's the bizarre reason the SNP oppose the backstop.

Backstop
Speaking of Northern Ireland, the SNP is unhappy with the Irish "backstop" proposal contained in the draft withdrawal agreement which Theresa May has negotiated.
The backstop would be triggered if the transition period expires without a new trade deal being ready in time. The SNP argues that if this happens, Northern Ireland will gain a competitive advantage over Scotland.
That's because Northern Ireland would be in a deeper customs relationship with the EU, and it would be closer entwined with the rules of the single market than the rest of the UK.
Ms Sturgeon says this would mean Northern Ireland businesses would get easier access to the single market, which she fears would have a "devastating" impact on Scottish jobs and investment.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46289739

If the SNP had voted for the WA and backstop, it would have passed.

seamus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

An unending backstop just has no mandate in the HoC, this seems to escape a log of people.

That's the UK's problem. The backstop is the emergency brake. It cannot be limited, temporary or otherwise fudged in a way that it can cease to exist. Because then it's not a backstop. The fact that a backstop by definition exists indefinitely seems to escape British politicians.

This backstop was the UK's idea, having shot down several other workable solutions. Everyone agreed it was now the only way forward. That the HoC doesn't want to support it, is not the EU's problem.

It's up to the UK now to propose an alternative that provides equal protections to the border as a backstop.

Kermit.de.frog

UK cabinet to meet today. Could be important as they are suppose to meet tomorrow.

Stop moaning ffs

Cabinet has been summoned to meet this afternoon

Looks like an election coming.

ToBeFrank123

J Mysterio wrote: »

No one should be 'ready to accept' that vote as the basis for the scandalous carry on of the UK government. How you can defend this mania is beyond me.

The vote itself should be under full investigation for outside interference from foreign powers, fraud, illegal funding, illegal overspends, illegal influencing of voters on social media, illegal handling of information and outright fabrications designed to mislead.

These things will only happen in earnest after the fact, when the most damage is fully delivered. The UK apparatus cant even process this as its so fully engaged in tearing itself asunder.

Ah I knew a post like this was coming. I point out the facts and someone like you says I'm defending it.

Its like pointing out the facts of a serious crime in the past, and then being accused of condoning it.

Deal with the facts. You can ignore countless votes in the HoC all you like. They are still facts that you have to deal with.

Facts will always trump opinion.

J Mysterio

Flex wrote: »

I think she has been wrong about everything she has reported on Brexit. Her narrative has constantly been against what EU leaders and negotiators have been publically saying and she constantly makes out the EU is terrified of the UK and disarray. She's doing it again; suggesting (stating actually)

1. mini deals are up for discussion,
2. that if the UK can guarantee that a deal can pass the British parliament theyll concede and
3. that the EU is prepared to make "painful" concessions on the backstop.
4. And of course, that the EU are in disarray and the UK has them on the ropes.

All of this after Michel Barnier's piece in the Telegraph only yesterday too. She appears to take opinions or potential ' what if' musings but runs with them and reports them as fact. Total disservice to the people of the UK who need some solid information from their media

She may well be herself in a sort of Twitter echo chamber where the great majority of the media she consumes is of that ilk. Also, she probably hangs on the word of countless Tory MPs, and so her view is likely skewed by their delusional perspectives. Mostly though, I think she's just a bad reporter and so representative of the decline of BBC more generally.

ToBeFrank123

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Cabinet has been summoned to meet this afternoon

Looks like an election coming.

That would probably guarantee a No Deal as the HoC would be unable to meet to stop it.

Enzokk

An election before Brexit could be disastrous for Johnson. He could pivot to no-deal with the Brexit Party, but that is apparently against what he wants. Or the Brexit Party will take seats from Johnson with their stance on a no-deal.

I could only see him getting a majority if an election was done after they left and he could sideline the Brexit Party, but doing it before Brexit day when all the focus will be on Brexit is a mistake.

josip

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Here's the bizarre reason the SNP oppose the backstop.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-46289739

If the SNP had voted for the WA and backstop, it would have passed.

Why do you think the SNP's reason is bizarre?

Enzokk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That would probably guarantee a No Deal as the HoC would be unable to meet to stop it.

The EU would grant an extension if a Remain Alliance won the most seats though, even if the results are only confirmed on the 31st October. The only way no-deal is guaranteed from an election is if it is one of the Parties manifesto leader and they win a majority.

Stop moaning ffs

Enzokk wrote: »

An election before Brexit could be disastrous for Johnson. He could pivot to no-deal with the Brexit Party, but that is apparently against what he wants. Or the Brexit Party will take seats from Johnson with their stance on a no-deal.

I could only see him getting a majority if an election was done after they left and he could sideline the Brexit Party, but doing it before Brexit day when all the focus will be on Brexit is a mistake.

Keeping a close eye on twitter this afternoon.

Elections two months don’t they? Do they do snap elections over there? Could it be held sooner than the 31st?

ToBeFrank123

seamus wrote: »

That's the UK's problem. The backstop is the emergency brake. It cannot be limited, temporary or otherwise fudged in a way that it can cease to exist. Because then it's not a backstop. The fact that a backstop by definition exists indefinitely seems to escape British politicians.

This backstop was the UK's idea, having shot down several other workable solutions. Everyone agreed it was now the only way forward. That the HoC doesn't want to support it, is not the EU's problem.

It's up to the UK now to propose an alternative that provides equal protections to the border as a backstop.

Nope, they understood fully the backstop was indefinite unless there was a legally guaranteed timeline to end it.

Which is the reason an indefinite backstop would never clear the HoC. The facts back this up. Too much opposition from across the parties such as Labour, DUP, SNP, as well as ERG. It never had a hope.

It became an exercise in flogging a dead horse in the end and is still being flogged by many, well past its death!

Kermit.de.frog

BJ addressing all tory MP's at 6 pm.


Election?

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1168488875075035137

Stop moaning ffs

Full list of rebels. Lewis Goodall saying he reckons earliest election could be is October 17th

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1168481026873729025?s=21

ToBeFrank123

josip wrote: »

Why do you think the SNP's reason is bizarre?

Because it made No Deal a much greater possibility and also because they took the same side as the likes of the DUP and ERG.

Ultimately they opposed the backstop which is the key point. Not much finger pointing at them though.

May proposed and was in favour of the backstop. Corbyn, SNP, etc opposed it. So who is the bad guy here? From an Irish point of view, May tried to help Ireland with the backstop and Corbyn and SNP wanted none of it. Yet they get off scot free.

trellheim

Secondly I don't think you have accepted the UK voted to leave the EU, fully and entirely.

I am quoting TBF123 here. I personally believe this is the cause of all the problems with Brexit and why it is so divisory.

1. The referendum choice includes no comma, or words after it - the words "fully and entirely" do not appear.

2. Therefore everyone was entitled to define 'Leave' any way they chose , and have felt free to do so ranging from BRINO to No Deal.

3. However 'Easiest Deal Ever' was the phrase de jure . As we have seen this is completely not the case , three years and still not even past WA to pol dec yet.

4. There remains a group of Eurosceptics in the Commons for whom "fully and entirely" is now within their grasp and will do absolutely anything in their power to get it.

5. All they have to do to achieve this end is inertia - run the clock down.

---

1 -5 are facts and not hyperbole. All the sides pretty much agree on this.


Edit : more facts.

6. Boris cannot call a GE ; all he can do is put forward a motion for one and hope 2/3 of MP's vote for it.

7. I'd expect a Cabinet meeting before the resumption of Parliament in any event

seamus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That would probably guarantee a No Deal as the HoC would be unable to meet to stop it.

That might be the plan. "Nobody's to blame because we were all out campaigning when we should have been saving our economy!".

Not so easy now though. Johnson needs the support of 2/3rds of the house or a vote of no confidence.

I can't see the HoC giving him a free pass to let no-deal go through by inaction, and the opposition can scupper any no confidence motion.

They might force Johnson to be sitting in the captain's chair as the ship goes down.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope, they understood fully the backstop was indefinite unless there was a legally guaranteed timeline to end it.

Which is the reason an indefinite backstop would never clear the HoC. The facts back this up. Too much opposition from across the parties such as Labour, DUP, SNP, as well as ERG. It never had a hope.

It became an exercise in flogging a dead horse in the end and is still being flogged by many, well past its death!

There is an other way to end the backstop. Come up with something that negates its necessity. And that something could be the agreed future relationship, alternative ways of keeping the border seamless or a combination of both. The actual problem is that the UK don't want to bear the responsibility of dealing with an issue that is actually their responsibility. NI is part of the UK after all.

kuro68k

My understanding is that Parliament needs to pass legislation for an election, so presumably will try to amend it to make sure the date is before brexit...