Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

GM228

trellheim wrote: »

The Kinnock Amendment to the Benn bill - has anyone looked at that in any depth .....

It basically gives an obligation during any extension, but affords no legal obligation to adopt the WA.

This sums up accurately those obligations:-

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1169324567179026432?s=19

A Shropshire Lad

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

The Telegraph saying Boris is still defiant. Apparantly he is only bound "in theory" by law.

'Boris Johnson would rather defy the law than ask for another Brexit delay, he has indicated, as Labour was accused of plunging Britain into a constitutional crisis.

The Prime Minister said he “will not” carry out Parliament’s instructions to seek an Article 50 extension if he fails to agree a new deal, adding he was only bound “in theory” by a law passed on Friday.'

Also would like to point out that the statement about Labour being the ones causing the crisis is laughable. I suppose this is the Telegraph so very much a Tory paper

Thargor

beggars_bush wrote: »

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-twilight-zone-police-escort-conservatives?__twitter_impression=true

This is magnificent reading

Don't splitter your coffee over your screen

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

Joe_ Public

GM228 wrote: »

It basically gives an obligation during any extension, but affords no legal obligation to adopt the WA.

This sums up accurately those obligations:-

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1169324567179026432?s=19

Is it just TM's WAB or is it the one that included the concessions supposedly offered during the cross party talks? If nothing else, this strikes me as a good way for labour MPs in leave seats to show voters they are genuinely doing all they can to achieve brexit save going down the no deal path.

Joe_ Public

Thargor wrote: »

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

GM228

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is it just TM's WAB or is it the one that included the concessions supposedly offered during the cross party talks? If nothing else, this strikes me as a good way for labour MPs in leave seats to show voters they are genuinely doing all they can to achieve brexit save going down the no deal path.

This is the text of his amendment:-

In order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.

Tell me how

Joe_ Public wrote: »

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

I kind of agree. The option to remain is what is felt by many is now the preferred option but to honour the initial referendum they must negotiate a deal with the EU.

I think they'd be better placed if they said that they would use MAy's deal versus a remain option and thus, to some degree obsolve them from responsibility for said negotiated deal while presenting the preferred option.

It was interesting that Fiona Bruce, 3 out of other 4 guests on the panel and the audience all laughed derisively at Thornberry. That is what Labour (and other remain advocates) are going to face up to throughout any campaign for a GE.

Leroy42

Labour's position is actually quite sensible but in an era of everything being black and white it sounds ridiculous.

The Tories view is that we will negotiate a deal but then go for a No Deal anyway. How is that any more ridiculous.

And Tice claims that would give all the advantages to the EU. Has he not been paying attention?

BP promised that voting for their MEP candidates would help change things in Brussels. What has changed? TM had red lines from the outset and got the WA.

MarinersBlues

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thargor wrote: »

Jesus this got lost in all the noise this week but what a complete and utter joke of an opposition Labour are:

She didn't handle that well but I would have a degree of sympathy with the position she's taking. If your going to offer a referendum you have to do so while being able to offer a credible leave option that would be able to pass through parliament. So somebody is going to have to renegotiate some form of better deal and that might have to be labour. None of this is easy and I don't blame them for getting a bit bogged down in it. Very easy just to have a fully remain or !eave position but that doesn't get you out of the brxit quandary imo

The fact she didn't seem to anticipate being asked that question wouldn't fill you with confidence about her ability to negotiate a good deal.

Leroy42

That's all very well and good but who else?

The Tories have had 3 years and failed miserably. Lib dems want to remain. Same with SNP. BP? Farage is paid by the EU and won't explain how else he is funded. Not to mention the BP are too small to be in a position to negotiate.

So because of the 2 party system Labour is the only alternative. Either try them or continue on with the already failed Tories.

Joe_ Public

MarinersBlues wrote: »

The fact she didn't seem to anticipate being asked that question wouldn't fill you with confidence about her ability to negotiate a good deal.

For somebody long touted as a future leader of her party, I've never been that impressed by her during her public appearances. I don't know would she be part of any negotiating team, i suspect not.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

That's all very well and good but who else?

The Tories have had 3 years and failed miserably. Lib dems want to remain. Same with SNP. BP? Farage is paid by the EU and won't explain how else he is funded. Not to mention the BP are too small to be in a position to negotiate.

So because of the 2 party system Labour is the only alternative. Either try them or continue on with the already failed Tories.

Personally I think Labour should be negotiating an agreed position with Lib dems, Greens (Just Caroline Lucas really), SNP and Change with a view to forming a coalition government after the GE.

Waiting until the GE to see which way the lie of the land is just plays in to Tories and Brexit Party hands by being able to attack them individually.

But, I have long said that Corbyn's position on Brexit and his performance as shadow PM has been part of this mess and so I don't have much confidence that he can turn in to a decisive and uniting leader.

Zubeneschamali

GM228 wrote: »

Perhaps people are getting confused about Queens Consent and Royal Assent as the former is only required for matters relating to provisions affecting the prerogative

Like instructing the PM to ask for and accept an extension to an international treaty, perhaps.

A Shropshire Lad

I admire Corbyn in the sense that I think he is genuinely cares about the social issues he wants to change things

The problem is he doesnt seem to have any charisma as a leader. The fact that Labour are still behind the Cons in the polls with all thats gone on is almost unbelieveable.

If Labour had a young Tony Blair leading them now they would be miles ahead in the polls

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Labour's position is actually quite sensible

Unlikely to matter - there's no way Labour get an overall majority. I don't think the LibDems will go for the idea of leaving No Deal on the table for a year or two while negotiating a Lexit deal which Labour will then not back in a referendum.


Better to hold the referendum soonest, with WA vs Remain.

Tell me how

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

I admire Corbyn in the sense that I think he is genuinely cares about the social issues he wants to change things

The problem is he doesnt seem to have any charisma as a leader. The fact that Labour are still behind the Cons in the polls with all thats gone on is almost unbelieveable.

If Labour had a young Tony Blair leading them now they would be miles ahead in the polls

Most people like the idea of a truly social conscious leader but the problem is when you are ignoring the reality of what concerns people by constantly talking about something seen as idealistic.

Tony Blair would have at least figured out how to tell people what they want to hear while manoeuvring to be in a position to influence what it is you want.

Joe_ Public

Tell me how wrote: »

Personally I think Labour should be negotiating an agreed position with Lib dems, Greens (Just Caroline Lucas really), SNP and Change with a view to forming a coalition government after the GE.

Waiting until the GE to see which way the lie of the land is just plays in to Tories and Brexit Party hands by being able to attack them individually.

But, I have long said that Corbyn's position on Brexit and his performance as shadow PM has been part of this mess and so I don't have much confidence that he can turn in to a decisive and uniting leader.

That would be a nice thought for sure, but when you have the lib dems eyeing up lots of marginal labour seats, I'm sceptical of the possibility of any coalition arrangement or so called GNU. I thought they did well just to get the legislation through, but not so confident about anything more ambitious than that and I think Cummings has bet his house on them not being able to get it together either pre- or post- election.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unlikely to matter - there's no way Labour get an overall majority. I don't think the LibDems will go for the idea of leaving No Deal on the table for a year or two while negotiating a Lexit deal which Labour will then not back in a referendum.


Better to hold the referendum soonest, with WA vs Remain.

Realistically what new deal would the EU offer Labour? The citizens rights and divorce part will not change so it is only the backstop, which will have to be kept because the EU will not trust the UK government to change in the time they are busy negotiating a trade deal so the deal they will offer the UK will be Theresa May's deal. If parliament had signed up to her deal and in 2022 Labour won a majority while they were negotiating a new hard Brexit FTA, they would come in and change it to a permanent customs union and closely following regulations of the single market for a better FTA. This doesn't change the deal May negotiated with the EU.

So I think the deal people will vote for if Labour is able to have a second referendum will be the WA with a change to the political declaration. Labour will not support this I assume, seeing that they voted against her deal before, and you would think remain could win on that deal.

That is why leavers want to part of a second referendum because they will be aware the unicorns has left the building and the deal they rejected is the best they can hope for.

Midster

This whole dam situation has been ridiculous right from the start. It’s simple to clear this blockage of democracy, and it should have absolutely been done months ago now.
And if it had have done, by now we would have already left or stayed.

The public decided to leave, but now the government cannot come to any kind of decision as to how to leave.
Or if to leave at all.

Put together 4/5 simple options that the government can agree on as being credible and allow the public to vote on them.

If the government cannot come to a decision, or if they cannot get to a majority, they simply have to cast it to a wider audience. This effects everyone, and once the public has been informed and has voted the government can get on with just that one thing.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that wouldn't work. Northern Ireland would then be subject to EU law though part of the UK so Uk legislation which was in the EU competency would then cause a clash between EU and UK law.

The way around this would be for Northern Ireland to become part of Ireland which might lead to violence and bombings within the Republic which Ireland would have to try to put down whilst at the same time it was making large payments to the North which would be a lot higher than they are now because the North sends more goods to the rest of the UK than to anywhere else.

So what you are saying is that if NI is taken out of the EU and there is a hard border between Ireland and NI then there will be violence and bombs in Belfast and London, but if they are kept in against their will there will be bombs in Dublin.

So follow the logic of what the answer is to avoid violence and you get the answer for Brexit.

Enzokk

Midster wrote: »

This whole dam situation has been ridiculous right from the start. It’s simple to clear this blockage of democracy, and it should have absolutely been done months ago now.
And if it had have done, by now we would have already left or stayed.

The public decided to leave, but now the government cannot come to any kind of decision as to how to leave.
Or if to leave at all.

Put together 4/5 simple options that the government can agree on as being credible and allow the public to vote on them.

If the government cannot come to a decision, or if they cannot get to a majority, they simply have to cast it to a wider audience. This effects everyone, and once the public has been informed and has voted the government can get on with just that one thing.

Blame May for this. She went in for the red lines in her Florence speech and thus cornered the UK in their position. Remainers would have happily accepted a Norway arrangement if they went for it but instead she decided to go for a hard Brexit. Since then both sides have become entrenched and the time for compromise is long gone.

Midster

It doesn’t matter if you change leader under these circumstances, it has already been proven by the may/Boris change over.
It doesn’t even matter if you change party, because Westminster is at deadlock, whatever idea anyone has for the future of the the uk, in, out, deal or no deal, nobody is going to agree with anyone else who doesn’t share the same vision as them.

Westminster is split in so many directions no matter what happens, what any leadership tries to do, it will be fought tooth and nail by everyone else.

Under these circumstances the only thing you can do is pass the vote back to the public.

Put all sides brexit/remain politics into simple English, whittle it down to 4/5 educate the public, and allow the British people to vote on it.

Democracy got us into this mess so why not let democracy get us out of it. This should have been done right from the very start

Imreoir2

Seemingly Johnson is faceing pressure within his cabinet to come up with a plan B because of the failure of his Brexit strategy. Reverting to the NI-only backstop is high on the list of potental escape hatches being considered.

Midster

Enzokk wrote: »

Blame May for this. She went in for the red lines in her Florence speech and thus cornered the UK in their position. Remainers would have happily accepted a Norway arrangement if they went for it but instead she decided to go for a hard Brexit. Since then both sides have become entrenched and the time for compromise is long gone.

The whole situation is ridiculous, there simply is not enough people in Westminster to get a majority vote on this, to many people like you said entrenched.

Let the people decide, stop the arguments and allow the people the last word in the uk’s newest direction.

Easy

Leroy42

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the possible deals available to the UK.

The current WA is the only deal available based on TM red lines. Change those and suddenly the a different deal can be negotiated.

So Labour can absolutely negotiate a deal, the current red lines are not fixed and are only there because TM chose to try to placate the ERG types on her party.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Seemingly Johnson is faceing pressure within his cabinet to come up with a plan B because of the failure of his Brexit strategy. Reverting to the NI-only backstop is high on the list of potental escape hatches being considered.

He can do that.

He does not need the DUP anymore.

That's why the DUP are said to be content with all-Ireland agri zone.

They are trying to save what they can as they know they are redundant and vulnerable now to the tender mercies of the English nationalists.

Varadkar should push Johnson on the original full NI backstop if he wants a quick deal.

Midster

Leroy42 wrote: »

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the possible deals available to the UK.

The current WA is the only deal available based on TM red lines. Change those and suddenly the a different deal can be negotiated.

So Labour can absolutely negotiate a deal, the current red lines are not fixed and are only there because TM chose to try to placate the ERG types on her party.

It does not matter who is in charge right now, a majority will always be needed for anything to happen

Jim2007

Midster wrote: »

Democracy got us into this mess so why not let democracy get us out of it. This should have been done right from the very start

It is not democracy that got them into this situation, it is the lack of democracy. For well over a hundred years the people have been told the have a constitution but it is unwritten and very flexible. And so the upper classes have been able to just make it up as they go along.

- There is no point in having another referendum because at the end they are only glorified opinion polls

- We have a speak of the house, under no obligation to be impartial who makes the rules up as he goes along and no way to remove him apart from trying to run a candidate against him at the next election

- We have a PM who seemingly can close parliament when ever things don't go their own way

- We have the Queen prerogative, which a PM can use to completely avoid parliament

- We know from FOI disclosures that both the Queen and Price Charles have interfered with the operations of the government and parliament in the past

The first thing the UK needs is a legally bind democracy where no one gets to make the rules up to suit them.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He can do that.

He does not need the DUP anymore.

That's why the DUP are said to be content with all-Ireland agri zone.

They are trying to save what they can as they know they are redundant and vulnerable now to the tender mercies of the English nationalists.

Varadkar should push Johnson on the original full NI backstop if he wants a quick deal.

Perhaps the backstop will be dropped after all in favour of an all-island agri zone (which in reality is just the backstop by anothe name) and is resold as the end point instead of an insurance policy.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Perhaps the backstop will be dropped after all in favour of an all-island agri zone (which in reality is just the backstop by anothe name) and is resold as the end point instead of an insurance policy.

NOT the same. Only covers 30% of goods.