Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Court in Scotland has found Prorogue is legal and can go ahead.

I smell an appeal to the Supreme Court!

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

Labour would need to call VonC and propose government of national unity in that scenario surely.

Yes, and Corbyn did himself no harm yesterday as a candidate for caretaker PM.

Mind you, Ken Clarke was even better, and is no longer a Tory MP, so...

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

The success of last night, and the expected success of later today, in taking control and preventing a no-deal exit on the 31st of October is all completely pointless the moment they agree to a general election. They need to block no deal at the end of October, and also change it from being the default option at the end of any extension or in X months time we'll just be back in exactly the same place again.

They can't change it as the default option; it's the default option under Article 50, and the UK can't amend Article 50 unilaterally.

There are only two ways to irrevocably avoid a no-deal Brexit; ratify a deal, or revoke the Article 50 notification (thereby cancelling Brexit entirely). Everything else is just buying time.

Loafing Oaf

robinph wrote: »

The success of last night, and the expected success of later today, in taking control and preventing a no-deal exit on the 31st of October is all completely pointless the moment they agree to a general election. They need to block no deal at the end of October, and also change it from being the default option at the end of any extension or in X months time we'll just be back in exactly the same place again.

Presumably the 'rebels' believe a GE will produce a majority in favour of another referendum or a different deal or whatever

CrabRevolution

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, but the Cummings fanclub have convinced themselves that no matter what happens, everything is proceeding as he has foreseen.

Rebel Alliance attacking the Death Star Government's control of Parliament? All part of the plan.

No Deal ruled out? That was what Boris wanted, he just couldn't do it himself!

Election? Ha ha! Boris eats elections for breakfast!

Of course, the same people already have a narrative ready if the opposite happens - Rebel Alliance fails, Boris wins! No Deal crashout likely - that was the plan all along, Boris only pretended to want a deal! Election blocked - Ha! Ha! Boris is still PM!

7 dimensional chess, people!

The fact is that Boris is the first PM to lose his first Commons vote in over a hundred and twenty years. He is on course to be the shortest serving PM ever. His performance yesterday made Theresa May look strong and stable and Cameron look clever.

He is really bad at this Prime Ministering thing, just as he was a disastrous Foreign Secretary and a hopeless Mayor. He wasn't even a good MP, and was fired from his first journamalism job for literally making sh!t up.

If he wasn't an Eton/Oxford posh boy we would never have heard of him in any capacity, but that is the UK class system for you.

It reminds me of Conor McGregor fans at his height a few years ago. Everything he said or did was proclaimed to be an act of pure genius which left everyone else for dust. No matter what it was, how little it achieved and how much it contradicted things he said or did both before or after, it was always a masterstroke. According to them, nothing ever went wrong for him and the consequences both positive or negative were always what he had intended all along.

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Presumably the 'rebels' believe a GE will produce a majority in favour of another referendum or a different deal or whatever

After all we have seen, if the Tories (with or without the Brexit Party) get an overall majority, then there really would be a case for Brexit to go ahead.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

They can't change it as the default option; it's the default option under Article 50, and the UK can't amend Article 50 unilaterally.

There are only two ways to irrevocably avoid a no-deal Brexit; ratify a deal, or revoke the Article 50 notification (thereby cancelling Brexit entirely). Everything else is just buying time.

I thought the default being no deal was the part that the UK added on themselves when implementing Article 50 into the UK's own laws, not that Article 50 made any mention of deals or their lack of?

Article 50 just being that you have 2 years to come up with something, but the UK's version of it being 2 years to come up with something and then leave regardless.

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Presumably the 'rebels' believe a GE will produce a majority in favour of another referendum or a different deal or whatever

They may hope that, but they don't have to believe it, and it's not essential for their strategy that this should happen. A general election in which hard brexiters do not win a majority is a good outcome for the rebels, even if there's no majority in favour of any other course.

Basically Johnson has to win a majority or he's stuffed.

Mr.Wemmick

Enzokk wrote: »

Labour could get back a lot of the vote they have lost to the Lib Dems if they are able to get legislation passed to avoid no-deal in law and then call for a general election. I think it is clear now that Johnson has no workable majority so an election is inevitable, but it is imperative to ensure no-deal is avoided.

Then it will be down to the manifestos and the Tories are in trouble as they will have to defend their record for the last 9 years. Brexit will play a role but as with the 2017 election it will be one of many issues for voters.

You made this point a good few pages back and you're the only one who nailed down this fact correctly. Everyone seems to have forgotten how 10 years of austerity has floored and impacted services, professions, jobs everywhere. Many teachers, doctors, care professionals, families, elderly.. hell, even tory councils workers/local authorities will vote for change. May said she would alter it, supports the JAMs, she didn't.. the trust is not there and the tories have to come to natural end on this run anyway.

Folks are not going to vote for Corbyn per se, but they will vote for change. In a GE, I will vote labour. Easy.

Enzokk

robinph wrote: »

The success of last night, and the expected success of later today, in taking control and preventing a no-deal exit on the 31st of October is all completely pointless the moment they agree to a general election. They need to block no deal at the end of October, and also change it from being the default option at the end of any extension or in X months time we'll just be back in exactly the same place again.

The problem I believe as mentioned before by Peregrinus, is that the opposition doesn't have the backing of those writing legislation so any complicated bill they propose could be so confusing as to do nothing. The best they can do is have as simple as possible legislation and then there will need to be a general election as there is no majority for anyone and no coalitions that will do so either. So I guess the plan for Labour is to get the extension from the 31st October secured, and then go for an election and see where the dice may fall.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I smell an appeal to the Supreme Court!

You are right,

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1169179774616555520?s=20

So it looks like the initial judgement on whether the UK could unilaterally withdraw article 50 notice was also defeated at the first court, but later overturned and confirmed by the ECJ.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

I thought the default being no deal was the part that the UK added on themselves when implementing Article 50 into the UK's own laws, not that Article 50 made any mention of deals or their lack of?

Article 50 just being that you have 2 years to come up with something, but the UK's version of it being 2 years to come up with something and then leave regardless.

No. Article 50 says you have 2 years to come up with a deal but, deal or no deal, at the end of 2 years you're out, unless an extension is unanimously agreed. (And the same rule applies at the end of any extension.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Article 50 says you have 2 years to come up with a deal but, deal or no deal, at the end of 2 years you're out, unless an extension is unanimously agreed.

Or you revoke A50, which the courts have determined can be done unilaterally by the Leaving/not leaving country.

But if an election is coming, there is little point in passing a law that says if no deal is in place the PM must revoke rather than crash out on Brexit day, because the next government (or parliamentary rabble) resulting from the election can just change that.

So if the extension secured gives enough time for a campaign, election and formation of a coalition if necessary, that is all the current parliament can really achieve to stop Brexit, they must hope that the next Parliament does the rest.

Stop moaning ffs

A very drunk Dominic Cummings went up to Corbyn last night and challenged him to an election ‘come on Corbyn don’t be afraid of us’. Apparently he was locked and wandering around HOC lost too at one stage

ancapailldorcha

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

You made this point a good few pages back and you're the only one who nailed down this fact correctly. Everyone seems to have forgotten how 10 years of austerity has floored and impacted services, professions, jobs everywhere. Many teachers, doctors, care professionals, families, elderly.. hell, even tory councils workers/local authorities will vote for change. May said she would alter it, supports the JAMs, she didn't.. the trust is not there and the tories have to come to natural end on this run anyway.

Folks are not going to vote for Corbyn per se, but they will vote for change. In a GE, I will vote labour. Easy.

I made the perhaps retrospectively poor choice of heading to the pub after a long day at work last night so my ability to follow proceedings was hampered. Therefore, I can't judge Corbyn's performance properly.

However, there is still the issue of the splintered Remain vote in a GE. The Brexit party will probably stand down, at least for some Tories or even all if certain troublemakers don't run or are deselected. I'm not sure there is enough cohesion in the "Remain alliance" for it to yield sufficient results.

I think we could see a repeat of 2017 in that both sides face somewhat open goals though this time Labour has the advantage, particularly if Jeremy Corbyn can be coerced (and that seems to be what is required) into advocating a People's Vote. Johnson will weaponise hard Brexit to this effect so trying to play moderate will backfire in my opinion.

For Johnson, I have no idea what he will run on. For the first time in living memory, the Tories can't realistically claim to be the party of prudent economics and sound government. I'm not saying that they embodies either of these, simply that this is how they run and win election campaigns. In addition, they have the baggage of the NHS, austerity, inequality, appalling gaffes with Brexit, etc. Crucially, Johnson will have alienated business this time around which might flock to the Lib Dems if Jo Swinson can play her hand properly. If Corbyn doesn't repulse liberals then he has a strong chance, especially if the remain parties coordinate properly. His base in the north of England might be alienated but southern Brexiters see him as a remainer anyway. It would make sense for him to occupy that vacuum.

I can't see the Brexit party making any sort of gains due to FPTP and them splitting the Tory vote.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Article 50 says you have 2 years to come up with a deal but, deal or no deal, at the end of 2 years you're out, unless an extension is unanimously agreed. (And the same rule applies at the end of any extension.)

Not to be pedantic, but even the two years bit is just the default if you don't agree an earlier date. The key phrase; which you allude to, is "The Treaties will cease to apply...". That's basically no deal, which under Article 50 is the actual endpoint of the process. The transition period in the WA is something new, not enshrined in A50. The future relationship would have to be agreed very quickly after the end of the A50 period in order to cut off the effects of all treaties ceasing to apply.

cryptocurrency

murphaph wrote: »

With the current numbers the logical next step is a VonC and then a caretaker PM I would have imagined, to pull the emergency brake. The Queen would be only to happy to appoint someone other than Johnson as her next PM I'm sure, even Comrade Corbyn, given what Johnson pulled with the proroguing business. She knows he has lied to her.

If Corbyn could put his ego aside and let Ken Clarke step up to be caretaker PM (he's declared he is willing and now he will not even be a Tory!) this could all be contained, an extension sought on the basis of another referendum with leave with no deal/revoke on the ballot as these are the actual choices available and leave with no deal absolutely must be an option or this will rumble on.

I'm amazed you really believe that. People so t want Corbyn, they don't want a care taker government, they don't want a 2nd referendum..they want Brexit and democracy rests on it. A general election is what the public wants

cryptocurrency

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

A very drunk Dominic Cummings went up to Corbyn last night and challenged him to an election ‘come on Corbyn don’t be afraid of us’. Apparently he was locked and wandering around HOC lost too at one stage

Very drunk. The mirror went from he had a glass of wine in his hand to you saying very drunk. No wonder the remainers are so badly informed.

prawnsambo

cryptocurrency wrote: »

I'm amazed you really believe that. People so t want Corbyn, they don't want a care taker government, they don't want a 2nd referendum..they want Brexit and democracy rests on it. A general election is what the public wants

But Johnson said the people didn't want an election. It was on the front pages of the newspapers. He said it in front of Downing Street. Are you saying he was lying?

seamus

robinph wrote: »

The success of last night, and the expected success of later today, in taking control and preventing a no-deal exit on the 31st of October is all completely pointless the moment they agree to a general election. They need to block no deal at the end of October, and also change it from being the default option at the end of any extension or in X months time we'll just be back in exactly the same place again.

The first part there looks like what today's Bill is attempting.

Broadly the bill says that if no agreement is reached by the 19th October, the Prime Minister is obliged to go to Europe and ask for an extension to 31st January.

It's no guarantee though I feel. Even if it's passed and signed, who's to say that Johnson as a caretaker PM would actually go ask for the extension. It's possible he could spend 12 days faffing and going to court to challenge the bill and basically avoiding his legal duty.

From what I can tell, Corbyn's plan is to run a GE campaign on the basis of a second referendum. All done and dusted by 31st January, Brexit cancelled, Corbyn in power, Tories in ruins.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not to be pedantic, but even the two years bit is just the default if you don't agree an earlier date. The key phrase; which you allude to, is "The Treaties will cease to apply...". That's basically no deal, which under Article 50 is the actual endpoint of the process. The transition period in the WA is something new, not enshrined in A50. The future relationship would have to be agreed very quickly after the end of the A50 period in order to cut off the effects of all treaties ceasing to apply.

No-deal is not the endpoint of the process; just one possible endpoint. The desired endpoint is in fact Brexit-with-a-deal (which may or may provide for a transition period continuing the application of the Treaties for a limited period; that's a matter for agreement). But the default endpoint, if no deal gets agreed, is Brexit anyway, but without a deal.

Either no-deal Brexit or Brexit-with-a-deal ends the Brexit process. Then comes the much bigger process of negotiating an implementing a new relationship bewteen the departing state and the EU.

If you think the Brexit process is goinng badly because the UK doesn't have a plan, wait until you see the hames they make of the next stage because of not having plan for that either.

cryptocurrency

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Presumably the 'rebels' believe a GE will produce a majority in favour of another referendum or a different deal or whatever

The 81 items to be discussed in the lords means it might not even hit the agenda before recess. The GE will wipe out the remainers and all analysts except those in an echo chamber know it

cryptocurrency

prawnsambo wrote: »

But Johnson said the people didn't want an election. It was on the front pages of the newspapers. He said it in front of Downing Street. Are you saying he was lying?

Sigh,

Ge has set the stage for the current Parliament against the people

awec

cryptocurrency wrote: »

The 81 items to be discussed in the lords means it might not even hit the agenda before recess. The GE will wipe out the remainers and all analysts except those in an echo chamber know it

Garbage.

If this were true we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

No-deal is not the endpoint of the process; just one possible endpoint. The desired endpoint is in fact Brexit-with-a-deal (which may or may provide for a transition period continuing the application of the Treaties for a limited period; that's a matter for agreement). But the default endpoint, if no deal gets agreed, is Brexit anyway, but without a deal.

I'm not referring specifically to this situation, but what's actually in Article 50. There is no provision in A50 for a TP, so the default endpoint is just an exit with a promise of a future relationship yet to be agreed. The TP was actually a concession given by the EU, it's not written down that there should be one.

Peregrinus

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Very drunk. The mirror went from he had a glass of wine in his hand to you saying very drunk. No wonder the remainers are so badly informed.

Numerous journalists and politicians are tweeting to the effect that Cummings was wandering the lobbies with a glass of wine (which is not allowed), drunk, lost, truculent and "stinking of booze". Are you saying that they're all wrong, and the the Mirror is your sole standard of journalistic integrity?

ballsymchugh

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

You made this point a good few pages back and you're the only one who nailed down this fact correctly. Everyone seems to have forgotten how 10 years of austerity has floored and impacted services, professions, jobs everywhere. Many teachers, doctors, care professionals, families, elderly.. hell, even tory councils workers/local authorities will vote for change. May said she would alter it, supports the JAMs, she didn't.. the trust is not there and the tories have to come to natural end on this run anyway.

Folks are not going to vote for Corbyn per se, but they will vote for change. In a GE, I will vote labour. Easy.

that's the difference between voting for a GE with no deal on or off the table. now that it's more than likely to be off the table, Corbyn can focus on other stuff.

A term should be 5 years, there's more to a GE than brexit, which is how he did better than expected last time out. he didn't focus on the one topic. Johnson will only have one drum to beat in a campaign.

if there's a proper remain alliance with Labour included, they could do very well.

Stop moaning ffs

This from the DUP last night. After having refused endas invitation on a brexit forum. Refusing the all island forum, ranting about Coveneys presence in Stormont, calling Leo stubborn and truculent. And on and on.
Now they want to engage. Panic is setting in as they realize the lights have changed and which way this Is headed I’d say

https://twitter.com/duponline/status/1168977812361007105?s=21

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

With the current numbers the logical next step is a VonC and then a caretaker PM I would have imagined, to pull the emergency brake. The Queen would be only to happy to appoint someone other than Johnson as her next PM I'm sure, even Comrade Corbyn, given what Johnson pulled with the proroguing business. She knows he has lied to her.

If Corbyn could put his ego aside and let Ken Clarke step up to be caretaker PM (he's declared he is willing and now he will not even be a Tory!) this could all be contained, an extension sought on the basis of another referendum with leave with no deal/revoke on the ballot as these are the actual choices available and leave with no deal absolutely must be an option or this will rumble on.

I'm amazed you really believe that. People so t want Corbyn, they don't want a care taker government, they don't want a 2nd referendum..they want Brexit and democracy rests on it. A general election is what the public wants

Only 22% of brits want a no deal, looks like depaffel will be gone soon old chap

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

You are right,

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1169179774616555520?s=20

So it looks like the initial judgement on whether the UK could unilaterally withdraw article 50 notice was also defeated at the first court, but later overturned and confirmed by the ECJ.

I'm not sure this case has any real chance of succeeding. The Queen has the prerogative power to prorogue parliament. If the court decides to overturn that, then who has the power? The court can't devolve powers without law to provide a path to where that power should be devolved to. No court can. Because courts can't write laws, only interpret them.

declanflynn

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

A very drunk Dominic Cummings went up to Corbyn last night and challenged him to an election ‘come on Corbyn don’t be afraid of us’. Apparently he was locked and wandering around HOC lost too at one stage

Very drunk. The mirror went from he had a glass of wine in his hand to you saying very drunk. No wonder the remainers are so badly informed.

No wonder depaffel is so badly advised