Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

reslfj

prawnsambo wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This from last year explains why the Eastern European's weren't coming then.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44230865

...
And as we all knew, brexit (falling sterling and uncertainty about visas etc.) is the cause.

'Europe is getting older' - the demographic trend - is not just in the West, but in Eastern Europe too. It is and will increasingly be a major cause of missing workers in temporary jobs like harvesting. It will in addition increasingly be difficult - even in a revoke A50 situation - to attract more skilled people from other European countries.

Poland already has allowed between one and two mill. workers from Ukraine to work in Poland. The Polish government wants all Poles to come home as unemployment in Poland is very low.

In Lithuania around 10% of the population is living and working outside the country. This is not going to continue.

When the number of people wanting to migrate for work is reduced, the 'Brexit-low' pound will create an unfavourably competitive position for the UK on the labour market - skilled or unskilled, temporary or permanent - and continental Europe with stronger currencies e.g. Germany with the Euro will be first in line to get good people or people at all.

Lars

PS! The problem with FoM for people is in the poorer countries that loses the young, skilled and better people.

Enzokk

prawnsambo wrote: »

The difficulty will lie with a recalcitrant Johnson who won't want it. So how do they negotiate it? It's a completely mad idea to have a WA come out of the HoC that the negotiating party doesn't want.

That is up to Johnson, isn't it? If he doesn't like what parliament decides, whose decisions he has to follow, then he is free to resign and let someone else take over. Or there will be a general election to sort it out but the internal workings of the UK parliament is none of the EU's business, they only follow what is happening and react to that. If parliament is signalling that the deal currently with a customs union will pass then the EU will have to take that into account and try to negotiate a deal.

Isn't that what the EU has been asking from the UK? Give us what you can accept and we will work from there, it seems if a customs union is voted for this is what the UK parliament will accept.


As for the abortion referendum and Brexit, there was an indication given before the referendum on what the government would propose to change the legislation to if people vote for it,

The Department of Health published a policy paper on "Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy" on 9 March 2018.[27] This provided an outline of the policies for legislation which would repeal and replace the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 if the Amendment of Constitution Bill was passed in a referendum. Under this scheme, abortion would be permissible in circumstances where:

• there is a risk to the health of a woman, on assessment by two doctors, without a distinction between physical and mental health;
• there is a medical emergency, on assessment by one doctor;
• there is a foetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth, on the assessment of two doctors;
• up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication, with a time period after an initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the termination procedure.

This is what the bill that was eventually signed into law states,

The law allows for a termination:

• under section 9, where there is a serious to the life or of serious harm to the health of a pregnant woman, after examination by 2 medical practitioners;
• under section 10, in cases of emergency, where the is an immediate serious to the life or of serious harm to the health of a pregnant woman, after an examination by one medical practitioner;
• under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth; and
• under section 12, where there has been a certification that the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks, and after a period of 3 days after this certification.

So there was a clear indication from government what they would do in the event of a yes result in the referendum and it seems to me that they have followed through on this.

Brexit, well there was no indication on what would happen if either result won and what the objectives would be so in no way can they be compared when looking at potential outcomes.

hometruths

lawred2 wrote: »

It already leans to remain

I agree it appears to, but hard to be sure given that a majority campaigned in 2017 promising to respect result of referendum and a majority voted to invoke Article 50.

Parliament appears to have changed its mind, but the government has not.

That’s exactly why they need another GE.

MrMusician18

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

In fairness a second referendum wouldn't be hypocritical only for the fact that they want remain on the ballot

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

That is up to Johnson, isn't it? If he doesn't like what parliament decides, whose decisions he has to follow, then he is free to resign and let someone else take over. Or there will be a general election to sort it out but the internal workings of the UK parliament is none of the EU's business, they only follow what is happening and react to that. If parliament is signalling that the deal currently with a customs union will pass then the EU will have to take that into account and try to negotiate a deal.

Isn't that what the EU has been asking from the UK? Give us what you can accept and we will work from there, it seems if a customs union is voted for this is what the UK parliament will accept.

But if he won't resign and just stonewalls on any concessions or changes to the WA to account for them staying in the CU, what then? If he had a majority, there'd be no problem, but now (and this is going to come clear in the coming days) he's the puppet of parliament and everything he tries to pass will be amended out of all recognition. And he still has a QS to get through as well. This sh1tshow will never end.

Varta

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When we voted on abortion it wasn't clear up to after how many months a baby could be aborted.

Should we have revoked the outcome on that basis?

No?

Didn't think so.

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

They voted to leave the European Union. It's only complicated for those who don't accept and want to overturn the result.

This is the sole reason for the pantomime that we've had to endure. They dress it up in all manner of ways but, at the end of the day, the British cannot come to terms with the result of the referendum. It has now reached the point where it is damaging to the EU. In many ways, but particularly in terms of how the citizens of the EU are represented by its leaders. If the EU leaders don't soon cut the UK adrift they will soon lose the confidence of the people. Tears in the rain. A time to die.

trellheim

I find it extremely hypocritical of Johnson etc - resigned over TM deal etc because he didnt get the bits he wanted - now "Oh no you cant open the deal". E.g CU would seal the deal completely and 500+ votes.

If Speaker doesn't allow MV tomorrow, as its been moved already then the legislation can be amended . EU would go with a CU, as it solved NI far better than the deal on the current table, DUP are sorted, as would Labour, it passes, Boris does not have a majority, bish bash bong, job done . You'd need to do it before a GE though as if you thought its dirty pool so far you've seen nothing yet.

In fairness I was watching Bercow on Saturday afternoon at the end and he was not happy at Rees-Mogg for doing the Order of Business for Monday on a point of order.

Enzokk

prawnsambo wrote: »

But if he won't resign and just stonewalls on any concessions or changes to the WA to account for them staying in the CU, what then? If he had a majority, there'd be no problem, but now (and this is going to come clear in the coming days) he's the puppet of parliament and everything he tries to pass will be amended out of all recognition. And he still has a QS to get through as well. This sh1tshow will never end.

He could try that, until parliament passes an act compelling him to go to the EU and ask for a permanent customs union. As GM228 pointed out that if he then stonewalls he will be charged for Misconduct of Public Office.

Misconduct in public office is an offence at common law and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.

Misconduct in Public Office

If the opposition has the votes they could make him dance to their tune until the next election. But I suspect they will only look for assurances on either a second referendum or until they perceive him to be in the weakest position before forcing a election. Maybe if the court has made clear he has applied for the extension by sending the letter (even if he hasn't signed it) to the EU and the EU has granted a extension to the 31st January.

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

I find it extremely hypocritical of Johnson etc - resigned over TM deal etc because he didnt get the bits he wanted - now "Oh no you cant open the deal". E.g CU would seal the deal completely and 500+ votes.

If Speaker doesn't allow MV tomorrow, as its been moved already then the legislation can be amended . EU would go with a CU, as it solved NI far better than the deal on the current table, DUP are sorted, as would Labour, it passes, Boris does not have a majority, bish bash bong, job done . You'd need to do it before a GE though as if you thought its dirty pool so far you've seen nothing yet.

In fairness I was watching Bercow on Saturday afternoon at the end and he was not happy at Rees-Mogg for doing the Order of Business for Monday on a point of order.

It would be impossible for the UK to leave the EU with a WA its own PM and cabinet doesn't approve of : they are the ones running the country.

Parliament can only hold up or veto government decisions.

Charles Babbage

reslfj wrote: »

'Europe is getting older' - the demographic trend - is not just in the West, but in Eastern Europe too. It is and will increasingly be a major cause of missing workers in temporary jobs like harvesting. It will in addition increasingly be difficult - even in a revoke A50 situation - to attract more skilled people from other European countries.

Poland already has allowed between one and two mill. workers from Ukraine to work in Poland. The Polish government wants all Poles to come home as unemployment in Poland is very low.

In Lithuania around 10% of the population is living and working outside the country. This is not going to continue.

When the number of people wanting to migrate for work is reduced, the 'Brexit-low' pound will create an unfavourably competitive position for the UK on the labour market - skilled or unskilled, temporary or permanent - and continental Europe with stronger currencies e.g. Germany with the Euro will be first in line to get good people or people at all.

Lars

Given these demographic trends substantial immigration into the UK was going to end anyway. Having Brexit to achieve less EU immigration was like burning your house down an hour before dawn because it was dark.

Yet, the useless Remain campaign never really made the point that large scale E. European immigration into Britain was a once off thing. Had Cameron waited a year or so then the decline in immigration would have become obvious.

GM228

Not sure if this has already been posted or mentioned previously, but well worth reading this thread in relation to alleged electoral offences involving the Vote Leave campaign:-

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1186010245061103618?s=19

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1185962901368168449?s=19

fash

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's total hypocrisy by people who don't accept the democratically expressed wish of the people in the referendum in the UK to leave the European Union because they don't like it.

It was a slightly expressed wish of some of the people in a country which doesn't really do democracy based on a silly and vague question, outrageous lies, outside interference and massive illegality. It was even expressly set out as legally non binding. You have no doubts whatsoever as to its legitimacy?

theological

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

I couldn't agree with this more. The principle of losers consent has been undermined. It is required for democracy to function.

Instead of parliamentarians respectfully deferring to the referendum result and implementing it MPs have been hell bent on undermining it.

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

The reason Corbyn won't call an election or keeps the government and parliament hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which ought to be repealed when Johnson has a majority) is because he will lose very badly in an election to the Tories and the clearer positioned Lib Dems. I reckon Johnson will have a comfortable majority in this scenario.

20silkcut

fash wrote: »

It was a slightly expressed wish of some of the people in a country which doesn't really do democracy based on a silly and vague question, outrageous lies, outside interference and massive illegality. It was even expressly set out as legally non binding. You have no doubts whatsoever as to its legitimacy?

Brexit was an undeliverable fantasy like voting for abolishment of taxation or for everyone to become millionaires.
It’s a fairytale invented by the tabloids.

Every economic model run on brexit shows it to be worse than EU membership.

That fact is only sinking in now with MPs. That the general population is still deluded is frankly a scandal.

To compare it to the abortion referendum in Ireland is ridiculous. That wasn’t a fairytale issue.

Again it all comes back to the utter stupidity of David Cameron.

No other country would dare touch that issue.

There is no benefit to it. No matter what, if your located in Europe, you have to deal with and have a relationship with the EU.
To say otherwise is utter fantasy as is being borne out now with this brexit horror show.
No good has come of it except maybe the entertainment value.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

I couldn't agree with this more. The principle of losers consent has been undermined. It is required for democracy to function.

Instead of parliamentarians respectfully deferring to the referendum result and implementing it MPs have been hell bent on undermining it.

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

The reason Corbyn won't call an election or keeps the government and parliament hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which ought to be repealed when Johnson has a majority) is because he will lose very badly in an election to the Tories and the clearer positioned Lib Dems. I reckon Johnson will have a comfortable majority in this scenario.

Can you explain to me why a result that was dripping with illegalities on the side that won should be respected?

Can you also explain to me what result should be implemented in this case when looking at what the campaigns said would happen if the UK voted to leave?

If you can clearly and concisely give answers to those questions, or even just the second one, then I believe all of us on here and remainers in the UK would agree with you. Good luck though.

Enzokk

To add to my previous tweet, when you are allowed to come up with lies like this, how can anyone seriously not be allowed to challenge it?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186174375390777344?s=20

So being in a customs union where tariffs are set at EU level is a threat to the NHS? How? Why? This person is deciding the future of the UK, a hedge fund manager going on TV and spreading lies to get Brexit.

Joe_ Public

They are such deeply duplicitous characters i agree with opposition moves to try whatever they can to stop them. Its impossible to deliver a deal by 31st, ergo we can only be talking about no deal. And Sunak and others trying to argue they took workers rights out of legally binding agreement because they are so important is simply risible. These guys should give it a rest with the lies and the spin.

LeinsterDub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

Brexit was blocked by the hardest of hard core the ERG when May's deal was put to 3 votes. No one can agree a Brexit is the issue

RickBlaine

Do we know if Bercow's ruling on another vote will come early today?

VinLieger

theological wrote: »

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

So they should have another election bringing the count to 2 since they had the referendum and making it the 3rd election fought with Brexit being a core issue but the idea of holding a 2nd referendum is somehow unreasonable? The level of hypocrisy by anyone pushing this farcical argument is just astounding.

The people voted for brexit by the narrowest of margins and then voted for a parliament unable to implement it again by the narrowest of margins, that's a pretty clear message that the people don't know what they really want and should be asked directly again.

Joe_ Public

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

To add to my previous tweet, when you are allowed to come up with lies like this, how can anyone seriously not be allowed to challenge it?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186174375390777344?s=20

So being in a customs union where tariffs are set at EU level is a threat to the NHS? How? Why? This person is deciding the future of the UK, a hedge fund manager going on TV and spreading lies to get Brexit.

It's the exact opposite in fact. Being in the CU means not being able to do trade deals independently and so there is no mechanism for the NHS or any other state organ to be sold off or opened up to foreign ownership as part of a FTA.

Joe_ Public

Dup saying no to CU and 2nd ref amendments. Jim Shannon says they want uk to leave on 31 October. Must think somehow they can get a no deal exit.

farmchoice

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

there is a level of ignorance and functionality in the British Media that is hard to comprehend once you come to realize it.

some charlatan will say something and the rest will parrot it almost without question.
pretty much the entire British media operate on the basis of quoting each others headlines at each other and then debating the headlines. not the issues or the facts just the actual headlines.
so the FT suggest Johnson has the numbers and the debate is now ''well johnson has the numbers so how do we view events in light of this.

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

Doesn't matter, they voted on Saturday to pass the WAB first before the vote on the WA, so even if they voted on it and it passed it would only be an indicative vote and not binding. They have to bring the legislation to the house first and the opposition can add amendments to that as they wish and then it has to go to the House of Lords and be debated there for 5 days before it comes back for a final vote. Once it passes all of that and is passed again then the government can bring the deal back for a vote.

Joe_ Public

farmchoice wrote: »

there is a level of ignorance and functionality in the British Media that is hard to comprehend once you come to realize it.

some charlatan will say something and the rest will parrot it almost without question.
pretty much the entire British media operate on the basis of quoting each others headlines at each other and then debating the headlines. not the issues or the facts just the actual headlines.
so the FT suggest Johnson has the numbers and the debate is now ''well johnson has the numbers so how do we view events in light of this.

Yeah, i dont know if he has numbers or not, not sure anyone definitively knows. Just trying to grapple with the implications. If they did pass mv, i guess they could then just pass another letwin. I' not sure we're going to get very far this week, just seems to be moving inexorably treacle-like towards an election.

Water John

Yes, they all had it down to 1 or 2 either way on Sat. He lost by 16. I know a few incl Letwin will vote for WA.
Now we're to believe on Sunday he has the numbers. Lb are working on the waverers not throwing them out of the Party.

I suspect he'll end up going for a GE in a simple vote with the support of the SNP. He'll prefer that to having a Ref attached to the WA.

Enzokk

Some interesting tweets on what is happening,

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186190435322155008?s=20

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186190437826072578?s=20

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186192598500872193?s=20

And then what the government wanted to do on Saturday if they won the vote,

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186192148556849153?s=20

So the government were planning to just have the legislation nodded through before they have published it and have it scrutinized? That is not worrying at all, it could have included anything and no scrutiny would have been given to it. This is not right, whether you want to just get on with it or not, you have to make sure you get such a monumental decision right. Just rushing it through with what is regarded as one of the most right wing governments in charge will lead to damage that some leavers would not have ever considered.

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

Doesn't matter, they voted on Saturday to pass the WAB first before the vote on the WA, so even if they voted on it and it passed it would only be an indicative vote and not binding. They have to bring the legislation to the house first and the opposition can add amendments to that as they wish and then it has to go to the House of Lords and be debated there for 5 days before it comes back for a final vote. Once it passes all of that and is passed again then the government can bring the deal back for a vote.

I dont fully understand that to be honest. Why are referring to it as a meaningful vote if its purely indicative? From what i can gather if he passes it he can then cancel extension request unless they pass another amendment stopping it. Which they probably can anyway so i dont know how far any of this is going to get this week.

marno21

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's the exact opposite in fact. Being in the CU means not being able to do trade deals independently and so there is no mechanism for the NHS or any other state organ to be sold off or opened up to foreign ownership as part of a FTA.

Hence why this degenerate is on TV peddling the opposite. Straight out of the Trump playbook.