Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

Shelga wrote: »

What do Labour and the Tories actually want to happen tomorrow??

What did Tony Blair mean in his warning to Labour today?- that if they get an early GE before October 31st, it could backfire and they could be wiped out while the Tories get a majority? Isn’t that a major risk at all times while Corbyn is leader anyway??

I'm pretty sure that was more or less it. That the Tories would win a general election.

Dyr

Infini wrote: »

It's also a collossal own goal, I mean so what if they're deselected when parliment holds all power in the end I mean if they truly want to stop Brexit all they need is for a Majority of MP's to rally behind who can act as a caretaker PM and basically refuse to endorse a GE because then Boris and the Brexiteer loons end up boxed in and unable to act. By deselecting them instead of rebels you lose all control entirely. It's a pity Jeremy is so impotent if Labour stopped following him and just sidelined him instead there's a chance they could end this.

The thing is the leavers are united behind a single goal, the remainders are not.

Only one winner in that scenario

WomanSkirtFan8

gooch2k9 wrote: »

It's all just about being in power. The good of the country matters not a jot to these people.

Unfortunately the fact and indeed the Brexiteer politicians, have proven this to be true with each passing day and week. :rolleyes:

Headshot

This is just small segment of what Alistair said

You have feel sorry for Alistai. The man has been chewed and spit out by his party.

The ERG are the real evil in his party

Itssoeasy

prawnsambo wrote: »

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I heard him say these few words outside No.10 Downing St.

"I don't want an election. You don't want an election."

Looks like there's going to be an election.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

"I don't want an election, You don't want an election... But if you twist my arm, just a little bit.."

Well just he doesn't want an election doesn't mean he won't get one.

prawnsambo

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Hard to believe sources from number ten at this stage. But this is interesting

https://twitter.com/sebastianepayne/status/1168600129819086848?s=21

This is what they're talking about.

But of course they're wrong. The image above leaves out paragraph 3(3) which says parliament must approve.

Student teaching the master apparently (if you read the thread).

Panrich

I’d be very concerned that Johnson would pull the rug on an early election if voted for by parliament until it was too late to stop a no deal. He would still have executive power until such time as an election took place.

Stop moaning ffs

Bambi wrote: »

The thing is the leavers are united behind a single goal, the remainders are not.

Only one winner in that scenario

You’re bang on the money there. Leave has morphed onto we always wanted to leave with no deal.

That’s the level of delusion and manipulation they’ve reached.

Remain and a single purpose by comparison is just nowhere to be found. When it should be the simplest message imaginable.

funkey_monkey

And still leaves it up there to create confusion

McGiver

prawnsambo wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. That's why EFTA have somewhat independent trade policy and their own FTAs.
NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Staying in CU and SM is a nonsense, it would make zero sense for UK (no independent trade policy, limited regulatory power, no representation in EU legislative, SM access payments, adherence to 4 freedoms).

Ah yeah, I should have given Turkey as an example for being in the CU. But technically speaking, leaving the EU is anything from just leaving the institutions to all the way to full crash out. I wasn't suggesting it would make sense, just how simplistic the referendum question was or how broad a mandate it gave the government.

CU membership actually doesn't make sense from a departing member's point of view as it restricts trade policy. Whereas SM membership does not restrict it (see EFTA's FTAs).

I was really surprised that the Norway route option was less popular in the HoC than the Turkey option, as the indicative votes confirmed. The Turkey option is far inferior and restrictive.

devnull

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re bang on the money there. Leave has morphed onto we always wanted to leave with no deal.

That’s the level of delusion and manipulation they’ve reached.

Remain and a single purpose by comparison is just nowhere to be found. When it should be the simplest message imaginable.

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to bank on the very very long odds get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

Capt'n Midnight

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Of course he has, what is it - five times- he's run for Westminster unsuccessfully at this stage?

Seven since 1994.

And he's even tried running in the Speakers constituency where the main parties by convention don't run. He finished behind Flipper the dolphin.

prawnsambo

McGiver wrote: »

CU membership actually doesn't make sense from a departing member's point of view as it restricts trade policy. Whereas SM membership does not restrict it (see EFTA's FTAs).

I was really surprised that the Norway route option was less popular in the HoC than the Turkey option, as the indicative votes confirmed. The Turkey option is far inferior and restrictive.

It's not that surprising. It's the whole rule-taking issue that curdles their blood. I'm not sure if it's still on her feed, but Nadine Dorries famously said the Norway option was always her preferred option. Someone replied and said it would mean rule-taking and she went right off the idea. Couldn't get away from it fast enough.

10000maniacs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You’re bang on the money there. Leave has morphed onto we always wanted to leave with no deal.

That’s the level of delusion and manipulation they’ve reached.

Remain and a single purpose by comparison is just nowhere to be found. When it should be the simplest message imaginable.

Yes you are right, but Johnson will be run out of Downing Street by the pressures of a no deal Brexit in short order. He will win the election albeit with another hung Parliament and I will give him 6 months after that.

McGiver

sondagefaux wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. That's why EFTA have somewhat independent trade policy and their own FTAs.
NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Staying in CU and SM is a nonsense, it would make zero sense for UK (no independent trade policy, limited regulatory power, no representation in EU legislative, SM access payments, adherence to 4 freedoms).

Switzerland isn't in the Single Market either, it has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU that largely contain much of the same rules as the Single Market, but financial services, for example, are excluded from these agreements.

Switzerland has been granted equivalency for many of its financial services, but the EU can withdraw this with just 30 days notice.

Equivalency confers nowhere near the benefits of being in the Single Market, which fully covers services, and which allows the City of London to act as the primary place of business for financial services sector companies (and related services such as legal businesses, insurance etc) to serve the entire Single Market from, due to the passporting rights granted under the Single Market.

The loss of these rights, and the loss of the right to legally transfer data from the EU to the UK, will have a hugely negative impact on the UK's services sector which makes up 80% of its economy.

I don't know why the majority of the UK's population thinks that losing the treaty rights which form the basis for much of the UK's economy and jobs is going to be good for the UK.

Perhaps they're unaware just how much of their services sector relies on the Single Market and are far too focused on trying to secure free trade in goods.

I simplified it as I didn't want to go into details. For the purpose of our discussion CH are in the SM (EEA). CH is de facto in EEA, replicating the EEA membership with set of 10 bilateral treaties with the exception of the services as you pointed out.

By the way, this is how the CH federal government got around the rejected EEA membership referendum (50.3 vs 49.7%) - by creating bilateral treaties instead largely replicating it. If only UK government could come with compromise like that - this is real politics!

ToBeFrank123

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

Well said.

Stop moaning ffs

10000maniacs wrote: »

Yes you are right, but Johnson will be run out of Downing Street by the pressures of a no deal Brexit in short order. He will win the election albeit with another hung Parliament and I will give him 6 months after that.

Total irrelevant point in about to make but he looks as if he’s aged years in a few short weeks.

He’s visibly aged and even the speech today seemed to be completely lacking any of his usual oomph, to use his own word.

ToBeFrank123

Corbyn ruling out election until after 31st October according to Newsnight.

Good move. He didn't fall into Johnson's trap.

ArmaniJeanss

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to bank on the very very long odds get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

I'm no fan of Chuka and he's made a lot of wrong steps.
But sticking to his belief that Remaining is best and that's all he'll try to achieve seems a principled position to take.
And is surely representative of at the very least around 30% of the population, so it seems right that some MPs should represent that viewpoint.

prawnsambo

devnull wrote: »

What illustrated this for me today was that there are a number of people who are now saying that they want to have an option of revoking article 50 put in any legislation as a back-up option should the other ones fail. This is making No Deal more likely.

As we've seen in the indicative votes where fairly decent sized groups voted to revoke and a peoples vote but abstained on soft Brexit options, some people are so pro-remain that they are willing to risk a No Deal Brexit to bank on the very very long odds get it. There is just no willing to compromise in the remain side.

If they had compromised a bit more this would have been put to bed and No Deal would have been put to bed for good. But already we're seeing the likes of Chuka making the same mistake again, being more concerned about supporting the minor minor minor chance of revoke than stopping No Deal.

Whatever about the chances of revoke, the WA as agreed by May was pretty much as hard a brexit as you'd get with just a stay of execution. From our point of view it was fine, but for the UK, it might as well be a hard brexit from the pov of industry and investment there. Once agreed, there'd be no going back. No JIT manufacturing and all the car and aeroplane industry would just wind down over time.

devnull

prawnsambo wrote: »

Whatever about the chances of revoke, the WA as agreed by May was pretty much as hard a brexit as you'd get with just a stay of execution. From our point of view it was fine, but for the UK, it might as well be a hard brexit from the pov of industry and investment there. Once agreed, there'd be no going back. No JIT manufacturing and all the car and aeroplane industry would just wind down over time.

I wasn't talking about the WA, I was talking about the indicative votes, like the ones for single market membership, customs union etc.

prawnsambo

devnull wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the WA, I was talking about the indicative votes, like the ones for single market membership, customs union etc.

My bad. The "we don't know what we want" votes. Iirc, people got so confused that one or two reportedly ended up in the wrong lobbies.

ThePanjandrum

Headshot wrote: »

afaik legally he'll have to do it or go to jail

I'm afraid that the remedy for the refusal is a vote of no confidence. The last time an MP was detained in the tower of Big Ben was in the 1890s I believe, for Bradlaugh. It is a sanction that has never ben used against a Prime Minister and is unconstitutional.

ThePanjandrum

sondagefaux wrote: »

Parliament can fire him and the entire government by holding a Vote of No Confidence in the government. There doesn't have to be a general election to fire Johnson.

A Vote of No Confidence in the government doesn't automatically lead to a general election.

Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, MPs have 14 days after the government loses a Vote of No Confidence to propose a new prime minister .

If they can do so before the 14 day deadline expires, the FTPA says that a general election does not have to be held.

Actually, the FTPA does not say that another Prime Minister can be put forward in the fourteen day period although some people say that it is allowable. During the debates on the bill an amendment was put forward to allow this to happen but it was rejected.

The FTPA assumes that there is a Prime Minister throughout the period

Enzokk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Corbyn ruling out election until after 31st October according to Newsnight.

Good move. He didn't fall into Johnson's trap.

The way for Corbyn to win this round is to ensure they enact legislation first to avoid no-deal, then go for the election. He gets to have his cake and eat it, avoids no-deal and gets an election.

trellheim

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

Explosive stuff : Johnson and Cummings are a pair of spivs / shysters (as we might have anticipated)

Enzokk

trellheim wrote: »

Superb reporting from Peter Foster

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster

Repeating and adding new context to what everyone's saying, essentially all a sham ( and incidentally highly worrying )

I still don't see this plan that Johnson and Cummings has where they really don't want to leave without a deal. Everything so far points to them wanting to leave without a deal. There is no other plans afoot to try and get the WA through or even a different deal.

As for the next steps,

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1168589781703544833?s=20

That says the PM will call for an election on the 14th October. But he cannot make that call himself, he has to get 2/3 of the HoC to vote for it or lose a VONC and not see another government command the majority of the house within 14 days. Those are the rules, so unless Corbyn actually calls for a VONC or Johnson ties one of the votes to one effectively, he is left with very few options.

That is his problems, he may have a lot of plans (or Cummings may have lots of plans) but his avenues to succeed are very narrow to non-existing. He cannot go for a soft Brexit as he would lose votes to the Brexit Party and he cannot go for a hard Brexit because it will mobilize the vote against him in marginal Tory seats.

He will have to convince a lot of people that the last 9 years of Tory austerity didn't happen or that he didn't support it when he tries to win their votes as this is where the election will be won. He is boxed in and unless Corbyn implodes I see only trouble for Johnson ahead.

Jizique

Strazdas wrote: »

Explosive stuff : Johnson and Cummings are a pair of spivs / shysters (as we might have anticipated)

How Foster manages to keep his job in that rag is amazing

trellheim

Tom McTague does top reporting in of all places, the Sun