Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Incidentally, what is your opinion of Hard Brexiters (including members of the ruling Tory Party) inviting foreign governments to veto the UK parliament's request for an extension? Is that not more of a surrender? Or would you simply describe it as treason?

The Surrender-Bennite Act should never have been passed. It's an egregious example of collaborationism between Remainers with EU forces.

In terms of the veto question, that veto, had it happened, would have restored default sovereignty to the UK Prime Minister. In that respect, I think it would have been a welcome development, but I appreciate the political ramifications on countries, such as Hungary, if they were to act in this capacity.

Thargor

Cant wait for the latest rereg account to be banned.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

That's quite simply incorrect.

The Surrender-Bennite Act handed power from the UK Prime Minister - who hitherto was handling Brexit - to the EU in two important respects: first, it forced the Prime Minister to take an axe to his pledge to leave the EU on 31 October; second, it empowered the EU to allow an extension for as long as possible. 31 January was the recommended date, but the EU could easily have proposed 31 December 2020.

The EU had the trump card, not Johnson. For a UK parliament to shamelessly stitch-up their own Prime Minister, handing that power and influence to EU forces, demonstrates exactly what I mean to say - namely, that no matter what way you square that circle, it cannot - ever - be described as the UK "taking back control".

That is the height of doublespeak you, ironically, have levelled against me.

Can you please stop calling it the surrender act, we are not UK MPs who need votes from the common people and we are older than 5 year old not to resort to infantile language.

The act did not hand the EU anything, it was a consequence of two important aspects in the UK. One, parliament is sovereign and makes it own laws, and secondly that Johnson may be PM but he doesn't have a majority.

None of that is the EU's fault and trying to frame it that was is incorrect.

theological wrote: »

This is odd reasoning. Countries can be closely aligned in respect to trade without being in a customs union. That is very very close alignment that would cause the UK not to be able to form an independent trade policy. The same is true of the single market.

Many major countries in the world manage to have good trading relationships without being in a customs union. Many countries find it an odd notion that they need to cede control over their tariff regime in order to have a good trading relationship.

Sure, countries can be closely aligned and not be in a customs union, but then there needs to be some checks at the border as the combination of the EU single market and the customs union means no checks happens between EU countries for goods.

The problem for the UK is and always will be NI. Without NI and the UK would have left on the 29th March already, but the GFA and peace complicates this.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The Johnson Deal is galaxies distant from any conception of "no deal".

In that respect, it acts as a reasonable compromise that is sufficiently close to the EU. Further, the EU expects close regulatory alignment in any future arrangement.

That's as may be ... but it doesn't actually exist. After missing his first deadline (the infamous 30 days he gave himself in response to Merkel's trolling) he floundered for several weeks until Varadkar presented him with a polished-off version of the EU's very first deal (the one May almost signed before the DUP got wind of it), brought it back to Britain with much pomp and circumstance, then promptly withdrew it as soon as Parliament said "hmm, well it looks like something we can work with."

Once again, hardly signs of a great and learned man; and as he refused to allow the deal to be ratified, it is effectively "no deal" and not very far away at all. Only 88 days away, in fact - that's a very small galaxy.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you please stop calling it the surrender act, we are not UK MPs who need votes from the common people and we are older than 5 year old not to resort to infantile language.

The act did not hand the EU anything, it was a consequence of two important aspects in the UK. One, parliament is sovereign and makes it own laws, and secondly that Johnson may be PM but he doesn't have a majority.

None of that is the EU's fault and trying to frame it that was is incorrect.

No, because I think when we describe acts of parliament, or other parliamentary procedure, it's important that we describe it as we see its effects. That's quite normal in fact.

I adhere to my view that parliament should not yield power to the EU. As a believer in "classical liberalism" who values the sovereignty of the nation-state, I highly disagree with what opposition MPs did.

J Mysterio

Have to say I'm disappointed in the choice of speaker. I couldn't listen to that fella for more than two minutes, and seems pretty humourless to boot.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The Surrender-Bennite Act should never have been passed. It's an egregious example of collaborationism between Remainers with EU forces.

Third time of telling you. Perhaps this time it will stick.

prawnsambo wrote: »

It handed the EU27 a decision to make on the basis of a request from the British government. That's the beginning and end of EU involvement. But I note that you didn't engage with the assertion that the purpose was to prevent something happening that neither the British public nor the parliament wanted.

Because that doesn't suit your 'betrayal' narrative. Which is quite frankly a childish notion.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Have to say I'm disappointed in the choice of speaker. I couldn't listen to that fella for more than two minutes, and seems pretty humourless to boot.

Reminds me of a poster.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Third time of telling you. Perhaps this time it will stick.

I don't accept the premise.

Why?

Because the purpose of "no deal" from Johnson's vantage point was to leverage that power to draw the strings together of a better, more comprehensive deal for the UK. By doing what they did, opposition MPs scuppered the primary negotiating hand of their own Prime Minister for politically expedient reasons; to somehow expose Johnson to the public for failing to meet his 31 October deadline.

These people care nothing about the "British people", rather their own self-serving political interests.

And, what's worse is this: that the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit from the EU. Defying expectation, Johnson came back with a deal and, even though this eliminated a no deal prospect, parliament insisted - thanks to Sir Oliver Letwin, that an extension should still be sought.

Opposition MPs don't have a moral backbone between them.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because, if parliament passes an act that hands power to a foreign body, then it cannot be said to be acting in favour of its own parliament. Logic alone arrives at this conclusion.

That does not follow. Parliament is free to make any decisions it wants. Those decisions will benefit or negativly impact other parties, be that intentionally or unintentionally, but that is not what is in question. Control does not rest on the outcome of how that control is exercised.

Parliament exercised its control, the result of that exercise of control does not post-factually remove the control being exercised.

A no-deal Brexit also hands power to foreign bodies, such as the US who would have the UK over a barrel in trade negiotiations, choosing no-deal is no more taking back control than choosng an extension.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The Surrender-Bennite Act should never have been passed. It's an egregious example of collaborationism between Remainers with EU forces.

OK, enough of the nonsense: (a) can you please provide a link to this "Surrender-Bennite Act" because it's obviously not the EU Withdrawal Act that the rest of us thought you were referring to; and
(b) can you explain in detail what these "EU forces" are that you have now referred to several times.

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of the veto question, that veto, had it happened, would have restored default sovereignty to the UK Prime Minister. In that respect, I think it would have been a welcome development, but I appreciate the political ramifications on countries, such as Hungary, if they were to act in this capacity.

Ahhhhh .... it's becoming clear now: you don't know how UK sovereignty works. The Prime Minster in the UK is not sovereign; he does not have the power that, for example, the French or US president has. Parliament is sovereign in the UK - all 600-odd MPs acting collectively.

Now do you understand why Parliament decided (and had the legitimate power) to bring the Prime Minister to heel?

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

No, because I think when we describe acts of parliament, or other parliamentary procedure, it's important that we describe it as we see its effects. That's quite normal in fact.

I adhere to my view that parliament should not yield power to the EU. As a believer in "classical liberalism" who values the sovereignty of the nation-state, I highly disagree with what opposition MPs did.

Surrender meaning,

stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

Extension meaning,

an additional period of time given to someone to hold office or fulfil an obligation.

So let us look at what the act did do as you state in your post,

The Act contains four substantive sections and a schedule that contains the form of a letter to request an extension of the negotiating period:[15]

• Section 1 obliges the Prime Minister to request an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period for the purpose of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, unless the House of Commons has passed a motion which either approves a withdrawal agreement or approves departure without a deal, and the House of Lords has debated the same motion. If such a motion is not approved, the Prime Minister is obliged to make the request no later than 19 October 2019.
• Section 2 obliges the Government to publish a progress report on negotiations before 30 November 2019, and if rejected or amended, publish a second report which details its plans for further negotiations. Section 2 also obliges the Government to make progress reports every four weeks from 7 February 2020 unless directed otherwise.
• Section 3 obliges the Prime Minister to accept an extension to 31 January 2020, and allows the Prime Minister to either accept an offer or ask the House of Commons to accept an offer of any other date.
• Section 4 amends legislation to ensure the date of departure is synchronised with European law.

The Schedule specifies the required layout and wording of the letter that requests the extension.

Nowhere does it state the Johnson has to go to the EU and give in to all their demands, which is exactly what surrendering means. Using your own advice and looking at what the act actually does and the effect it has and not what Cummings wants you to think it does, shows you are wrong. So please again stop calling it the surrender act and maybe we can have a debate about Brexit instead of you trying to derail this thread.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't accept the premise.

Why?

Because the purpose of "no deal" from Johnson's vantage point was to leverage that power to draw the strings together of a better, more comprehensive deal for the UK. By doing what they did, opposition MPs scuppered the primary negotiating hand of their own Prime Minister for politically expedient reasons; to somehow expose Johnson to the public for failing to meet his 31 October deadline.

These people care nothing about the "British people", rather their own self-serving political interests.

And, what's worse is this: that the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit from the EU. Defying expectation, Johnson came back with a deal and, even though this eliminated a no deal prospect, parliament insisted - thanks to Sir Oliver Letwin, that an extension should still be sought.

Opposition MPs don't have a moral backbone between them.

Yeah, the cunning plan of putting a gun to your head and threatening the bystanders with splatter. And when he realised the gun was loaded and red hair didn't suit him he came crawling back for a deal and got an old version dusted off before the Benn Act came into force. That ploy was a busted flush two years ago when Theresa May tried it.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

Nowhere does it state the Johnson has to go to the EU and give in to all their demands, which is exactly what surrendering means. Using your own actions and looking at what the act actually does and not what Cummings wants you to think it does, shows you are wrong. So please again stop calling it the surrender act and maybe we can have a debate about Brexit instead of you trying to derail this thread.

Derail? I've been directly asked, several times, to respond to what others have asked of me. If you have an issue, you should contact a Mod rather than posting that through here.

Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway.

You are somehow assuming that the Opposition is somehow the beacon of sincerity in their intentions.

They're not, as their actions have shown.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Because the purpose of "no deal" from Johnson's vantage point was to leverage that power to draw the strings together of a better, more comprehensive deal for the UK.

So why, in his first two months in office, did he not manage to agree even the bare outline of such a deal? And why, when he gave himself 30 days to come up with a deal, did he fail (again). And why, when he insisted the he'd take the UK out "do or die" by the 31st Oct, did he cave in an bring back the original "NI-only" May deal and then promote it as a great deal?

If "no deal" was such great leverage, how do you explain two outright failures and one capitulation on his part, and no success? Hardly the mark of a great statesman, is it?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit.

Please provide a link to this curiously named piece of legislation, because it doesn't show up in Google.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Put tersely, the Surrender-Bennite Act was passed to avoid a No Deal exit. Fine. But Johnson came back with a deal, and yet parliament voted for an extension anyway.

Indeed they did, and a good thing too given that Johnson decided to suspend ratification of his own deal before the 31st of October. Clearly the extension was needed given that we are currently using it.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Once again, how does Johnson's deal mean reasonably close alignment? Where does Johnson's deal state that he wants "close regulatory alignment"? Because it's beginning to look like you're making things up.

Well, seeing as Eskimohunt won't answer my question (having been asked three times), I'll answer it myself. In fact, Johnson made May's deal a lot worse in terms of alignment.


The line in the political declaration that “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with union rules in relevant areas” in any future trade talks has been ditched.
One source said the removal of this albeit vague promise of being aligned to the EU in future has been the key to unlocking the support of the European Research Group.


So, Eskimohunt made up what he claimed when he said that Johnson wants "reasonably close alignment" and Johnson wants "close regulatory alignment". He couldn't prove what he said because the opposite is actually true.

ancapailldorcha

Use the proper name of the legislation please. No more of the "surrender act" stuff. This isn't Parliament.

Thargor

Thargor wrote: »

Cant wait for the latest rereg account to be banned.

If nothing else, s/he has woken up the discussion.
This is after all a discussion forum, if it became too one sided it would just turn into an echo chamber.

ancapailldorcha

Thargor wrote: »

Cant wait for the latest rereg account to be banned.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Reminds me of a poster.

Cut out the snide comments please. This is an open forum.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

If nothing else, s/he has woken up the discussion.
This is after all a discussion forum, if it became too one sided it would just turn into an echo chamber.

Indeed. However, any reasonable discussion should involve opinion based on fact. Otherwise, it's meaningless waffle.

Enzokk

This is just depressing really,

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1191391040906891264?s=20

So EEA Nationals paid in more than £15.5b in income tax and NI than they claimed in benefits. That is a lot of money that will need to be found to fund all those extra police and hospitals and NHS staff that the Tories will promise to employ and build, if they want to continue their Brexit plans.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Have to say I'm disappointed in the choice of speaker. I couldn't listen to that fella for more than two minutes, and seems pretty humourless to boot.

His job is more like that of a referee or moderator, he should be rarely seen or heard, if he becomes centre stage either parliament is becoming dysfunctional or he is not doing his job properly.
With John Bercow, it was a dysfunctional house he was trying to keep under control.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

This is just depressing really,

https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1191391040906891264?s=20

So EEA Nationals paid in more than £15.5b in income tax and NI than they claimed in benefits. That is a lot of money that will need to be found to fund all those extra police and hospitals and NHS staff that the Tories will promise to employ and build, if they want to continue their Brexit plans.

One of the problems with that type of posting is that nobody really disagrees with it.

The implication is that somehow Leavers are against all those immigrants and do not value what they bring to society.

I sincerely believe that is not the case. Very few people are against immigration as a concept. What becomes contested is the idea that there should be "no controls" over that immigration.

I myself am in favour of immigration, as long as the quantity and quality of persons entering the country is controlled. In this way, it ensures that economic demand is met, but met in a way that is controlled and measureable. This seems entirely reasonable.

But that Tweet almost gives off the impression that Leave voters are somehow anti- the contribution made by immigrants. True, there will always be a toxic layer of racists in any country, and that is - and always should be - condemned by all sides.

But they are a minority, mercifully - and even though they exist, that does not act as an argument against controlled migration. After all, most countries in the world control the quantity and quality of entering migrants.

Furthermore, controlling migration does not mean "stopping migration".

gooch2k9

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the problems with that type of posting is that nobody really disagrees with it.

The implication is that somehow Leavers are against all those immigrants and do not value what they bring to society.

I sincerely believe that is not the case. Very few people are against immigration as a concept. What becomes contested is the idea that there should be "no controls" over that immigration.

I myself am in favour of immigration, as long as the quantity and quality of persons entering the country is controlled. In this way, it ensures that economic demand is met, but met in a way that is controlled and measureable. This seems entirely reasonable.

But that Tweet almost gives off the impression that Leave voters are somehow anti- the contribution made by immigrants. True, there will always be a toxic layer of racists in any country, and that is - and always should be - condemned by all sides.

But they are a minority, mercifully - and even though they exist, that does not act as an argument against controlled migration. After all, most countries in the world control the quantity and quality of entering migrants.

Furthermore, controlling migration does not mean "stopping migration".

The UK doesn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. It is fully in control of the ever growing number of immigrants from outside the EU. It is also fully in control of non-contributing immigrants from within the EU. The problem is UK governments' failures to use the controls at their disposal, as other EU countries have.

J Mysterio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

His job is more like that of a referee or moderator, he should be rarely seen or heard, if he becomes centre stage either parliament is becoming dysfunctional or he is not doing his job properly.
With John Bercow, it was a dysfunctional house he was trying to keep under control.

I understand what the job involves. Let's see how this fella does. UK politics will remain dysfunctional for the forseeable. A bit of charisma and humour goes a long way as speaker.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

What becomes contested is the idea that there should be "no controls" over that immigration.

I myself am in favour of immigration, as long as the quantity and quality of persons entering the country is controlled.

This is a false premis, the EU does not mean no-controls to migration. There are controls in place, some of which the British government chose not to use.

gooch2k9

gooch2k9 wrote: »

The UK doesn't need to leave the EU to control immigration. It is fully in control of the ever growing number of immigrants from outside the EU. It is also fully in control of non-contributing immigrants from within the EU. The problem is UK governments' failures to use the controls at their disposal, as other EU countries have.

I agree.

One of the faults with the UK government, and this goes back many years, is that they had the ability to control non-EU migration (and to some extent, EU migration) but did next to nothing to control the numbers.

They should have made a positive effort. In fact, had they done so, Brexit may not have happened.

That said, my comment above refers to the "principle" of migration, independent of the UK or any other country.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree.

One of the faults with the UK government, and this goes back many years, is that they had the ability to control non-EU migration (and to some extent, EU migration) but did next to nothing to control the numbers.

They should have made a positive effort. In fact, had they done so, Brexit may not have happened.

That said, my comment above refers to the "principle" of migration, independent of the UK or any other country.

One wonders why people think that giving more control to an institution with such a poor track record in this area, at least in the minds of those who oppose migration, will leed to a better outcome.