Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

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

Wrong. FTPA doesn't assume anything. FTPA clearly says that if following a no confidence motion a confidence motion is passed there is no GE.

HoC own library mentions that a new HMG with a new PM can ask the HoC for confidence.

The second, ‘no confidence’, trigger is pulled if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative Government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days by means of a positive motion of confidence.
Section 2 of the Act specifies the form of the motion: “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
If this motion is carried, there is a 14 calendar-day period in which a
Government may be confirmed in office by a resolution in the form:
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”
If a new Government cannot be formed within this time period, then a general election is triggered. There is no provision for an extension of the 14-day period. Dissolution need not follow immediately on a triggering event, as section 2(7) allows for the Prime Minister to recommend a suitable polling day to the Crown. A proclamation for a new Parliament can then be issued.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02873/SN02873.pdf

ninebeanrows

I have finally had a clear moment and know what the outcome of this will be

Boris will win a solid majority in election, 20-30MPs

He will airbrush a few minor adjustments to the withdrawal agreement, change the name of the backstop to something more palatable and claim a great victory for Britain

Brexit party and idiot supporter base will buy it and Boris will be king of england

May not be worst outcome for Ireland, once DUP lose that power --majority tory government will happily sell NI down the river

Naggdefy

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

PropJoe10

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade Statesman like Churchill.

Labour need to ditch Corbyn ASAP and get someone with an actual fixed position and some principled structured arguments in. Keir Starmer would be a decent choice. I've no idea how Corbyn hasn't been under pressure for his job in all this.

johnnyskeleton

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

I have finally had a clear moment and know what the outcome of this will be

Boris will win a solid majority in election, 20-30MPs

He will airbrush a few minor adjustments to the withdrawal agreement, change the name of the backstop to something more palatable and claim a great victory for Britain

Brexit party and idiot supporter base will buy it and Boris will be king of england

May not be worst outcome for Ireland, once DUP lose that power --majority tory government will happily sell NI down the river

I find it hard to see how an election will result in anything other than losses for both major parties, requring a coalition in a country that has an intense dislike for coalitions. The real question is whether Brexit party taking votes from Consrvatives will outweigh Lib Dems/Greens etc taking from Labour

Naggdefy

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Labour need to ditch Corbyn ASAP and get someone with an actual fixed position and some principled structured arguments in. Keir Starmer would be a decent choice. I've no idea how Corbyn hasn't been under pressure for his job in all this.

I never remember as poor a party leader in a large county like the UK.

Naggdefy

Is there anyway UK candidates can campaign as one of 3.

1. Brexit no Deal.
2. Brexit WA or some negotiation.
3. No Brexit...

PropJoe10

Naggdefy wrote: »

I never remember as poor a party leader in a large county like the UK.

Nope, he's absolutely dreadful. Shows how important that proper, targeted and focused opposition is in politics. Yvette Cooper, Hillary Benn or Keir Starmer would all do a far better job.

It would be a disaster for Labour to go into another election with Corbyn in charge.

Strazdas

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

Cameron's guilt is off the scale. Nobody was even looking for a referendum in 2015 : UKIP for example didn't want one (campaigning for one would have meant being bound by the result if it had gone to Remain)

reslfj

McGiver wrote: »

Tech note - neither CH nor NO are in the CU. ...
...NI Backstop would be needed even if they went the Norway route.

Edit - forgot to mention that staying in the SM and the CU basically equals the EU membership, hence no country outside the EU is in the SM as well as the CU.

The CU+SM does necessitate a very large part of EU rules to be de facto automatically passed as laws in the UK.
But it only trade related rules and directives (although the word 'trade' in a very extended sense) need be adapted in the UK.

Membership of both the SM and the CU is needed for the UK to obtain the friction free (and inexpensive) transport across the borders. This includes an absolute need for the EU as region/country of origin for many products made for export. A car with only 25% UK added value (fairly typical) can not be included in any trade deal with the UK as country of origin.

The UK currently has a number of opt-outs. But the UK also seems happy having opt-ins to a lot of other mutually beneficial EU areas - e.g. EURATOM, Europol, border and security databases, Open-sky, long haul lorry permits, electricity market etc. etc.

A SM+CU type relation will eliminate some EU laws from the UK compared to membership, but I'm not very sure, it will be more or less laws than under the current UK opt-out rules or will be the laws the UK wants to avoid.

Lars

MrMusician18

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

Wat?

This crisis has been entirely manufactured by the Tories. They own it.

J Mysterio

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

1. May
2. Cameron
3. Corbyn

careless sherpa

Naggdefy wrote: »

In a hierarchy of blame for the Brexit fiasco I think I'd apportion blame to 1. Cameron for such poor judgement. 2. Corbyn for such ineffectual opposition. May did as best she could and Johnson is just the fopish clown we all knew he was with delusions of being a renegade statesman like Churchill.

May went and did a solo run and decided to pull the UK out of the SM and CU without her senior officals being aware of the plan until she announced it at the party conference. She was a disaster

ltd440

1 Cameron
2 Cameron
3 Cameron
4 May
5 Corbyn
1,2 and 3 for being so arrogant to call a Ref that was so easily derailed.
4 for calling a GE when she didn't need to.
5 for being so unbelievable ineffective whenever an opportunity fell in his lap

Mr.Nice Guy

If there ends up being an election, what outcome do we want here? According to opinion polls, another hung parliament would be likely:

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1168546988205518850

I think the DUP to win the fewest seats possible would be on most people's wishlist, though I sadly feel they will hold most if not all of them.

But what about as far as the main parties go? I don't like Johnson or his cabinet at all, yet is him winning an overall majority the best outcome from our point of view? On the basis that he might be able to ditch the Duppers?

The best outcome for Corbyn looks to be a hung parliament in which he can cobble together a coalition with the SNP and others, but would that be much help to us?

The choice seems to me to be between a narcissistic charlatan with little to no principles but who can possibly command a majority, versus a stubborn, unimaginative traditionalist who does possess some principles but who is unlikely to command a majority.

Which is the best - or maybe I should say least bad - option? What do you reckon?

Limpy

I have been very impressed by PM Johnson since he took the Tory leadership. Very decisive and I think he will win a snap election when it happens.

ballsymchugh

Any idea on a time table for votes later today?

briany

Err, in the event of a GE, why wouldn't Farage's Brexit Party charge into the fray? He will if he thinks that Brexit is at stake, and the seats they win would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Peregrinus

briany wrote: »

Err, in the event of a GE, why wouldn't Farage's Brexit Party charge into the fray? He will if he thinks that Brexit is at stake, and the seats they win would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

On current polling, they most likely won't win any seats at all; one or two, tops. But they could deny the Tories a lot of seats, splitting the No-deal Brexit vote and allowing Labour or the Lib Dems to take the seat.

In 2015 UKIP won 12.5% of the vote, which in a democracy would be expected to yield about 80 seats in a 650-seat assembly. In the UK, however, they took just one seat (a sitting Tory MP who had defected to UKIP, and held his seat as a UKIP candidate). But by taking votes from the Tories they cost the Tories up to 50 seats.

Right now the polls have Brexit Party in the 10%-15% range. If that's what they get in a GE, expect a similar outcome. And Johnson can't afford to lose 50 seats.

Peregrinus

Limpy wrote: »

I have been very impressed by PM Johnson since he took the Tory leadership. Very decisive and I think he will win a snap election when it happens.

I find your ideas intriguing. May I subscribe to your newsletter?

Limpy

Peregrinus wrote: »

I find your ideas intriguing. May I subscribe to your newsletter?

No

Peregrinus

Naggdefy wrote: »

I never remember as poor a party leader in a large county like the UK.

He's undoubtedly the worst Labour leader that I can recall.

But the worst party leader? He's up against some pretty stiff competition for that title these days. The Tories have just had their three worst party leaders of all time, one after another, in succession. You can argue about which of them was worse than the others but I think it's pretty unarguable that, between them, they're the bottom three.

A thought: This has happened after both parties have switched away from having the party leader chosen substantially by the parliamentary party, instead being chosen by the party rank-and-file.

Conclusion: This system produces really bad results. It should be rethought.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Has there been any opinion polls ran recently in Ireland regarding people's thoughts on Brexit?

I'm increasing encountering a minority opinion that people believe we will be hit harder than the UK by Brexit and that we should change our position in order to avoid a no deal Brexit.

I myself think that we should stay firm and that Coveney, even though I'm not a fan of his party for being too left leaning and not representing people that actually work in this country, has played a blinder so far.

Zubeneschamali

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.

Perhaps, but it is also making No Brexit more likely, and since the WA is the hardest Brexit imaginable and Soft Brexit is currently not on the table, No Brexit is the only sane option available.


While No Deal is very bad in the short term, the WA also puts the UK outside the Single Market trying to negotiate a Free Trade Deal, so over, say, 50 years, the two will be similarly bad for the UK.

Peregrinus

Derek Eager Registrar wrote: »

Has there been any opinion polls ran recently in Ireland regarding people's thoughts on Brexit?

I'm increasing encountering a minority opinion that people believe we will be hit harder than the UK by Brexit and that we should change our position in order to avoid a no deal Brexit.

I understand this.

The thing is, Brexit-with-a-deal is also very, very bad for Ireland, if the terms of the deal do not avoid a hard border. (And the UK does not currently seem minded to accept any deal which would avoid a hard border.) So, unless the UK changes its position, we're between a rock and a hard place; we have to choose the less awful of two pretty awful options.

I haven't seen any recent opinion polling on this. The general vibe suggests that support for the government's position is holding up well. (And certainly better than support for the UK government's position in the UK!) But it could be that there's a growing unease/discontent which has yet to manifest itself. How big that is, obviously, we can't know.

Zubeneschamali

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Boris will win a solid majority in election, 20-30MPs

He will airbrush a few minor adjustments to the withdrawal agreement, change the name of the backstop to something more palatable and claim a great victory for Britain

This would be grand for Ireland and the EU.


A catastrophe for the UK, perhaps its death knell, but hey, if they vote Tory after watching the last 3 years of gobsmacking incompetence piled on the previous 6 years of cruelty, I can't really say they don't deserve it.

Zubeneschamali

Naggdefy wrote: »

Is there anyway UK candidates can campaign as one of 3.

1. Brexit no Deal.
2. Brexit WA or some negotiation.
3. No Brexit...

1. Tory/Brexit Party
2. Labour
3. Lib Dems/Greens/SNP/Plaid Cymru

Stop moaning ffs

Brief flick through the main talking heads and politicos on twitter and it seems the mood has shifted into not allowing the circumstances for a GE to come about as they all think Johnson will put the election date after the 31st in order to allow the no deal happen first.

I understand them not trusting him but I can’t see him allowing no deal crash out to happen.

Borderhopper

Limpy wrote: »

I have been very impressed by PM Johnson since he took the Tory leadership. Very decisive and I think he will win a snap election when it happens.

Running in circles and shouting loudly does not constitute decisiveness.

Seriously, though, what actions have convinced you of his decisiveness?

Peregrinus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Brief flick through the main talking heads and politicos on twitter and it seems the mood has shifted into not allowing the circumstances for a GE to come about as they all think Johnson will put the election date after the 31st in order to allow the no deal happen first.

I understand them not trusting him but I can’t see him allowing no deal crash out to happen.

He's been purusing a strategy that is very likely likely to lead to a no-deal crash out.

That means that either (a) he is willing to accept a no-deal crash out, or (b) he is in delusional denial about the likely outcome of his strategy. But even if the truth is (b), the fact that he's in denial about the outcome of his strategy makes it unlikely that he will act in a way to avert that outcome.

So, yeah, either way Johnson, given his druthers, would probably lead the UK into a crash-out Brexit.