Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Spanish Eyes

I get the feeling that No One really wants full on Brexit, but are trying their damndest to pretend they do.

Anyway here comes Groundhog Day once more.

Joe_ Public

Good point, as usual, by Stephen Bush. The difference between Dec 12 and Dec 9 is three legislative days, but that could easily become 5 if you were to include potential Saturday and Sunday sittings. Of course, Johnson promises he wont bring back his WAB if they give him his Dec 12th election....


https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1188908019180097538

trellheim

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

prawnsambo

trellheim wrote: »

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

At some point they're going to go cold turkey unless the TP is extended for at least another five years.

briany

trellheim wrote: »

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

Under the currently proposed deal they can walk away from the table and go no-deal in 2020, However, the deal can be amended to give parliament a vote on whether to extend the transition period, and that will probably become a necessity the longer that the UK stays within the EU proper but the transition date does not budge.

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

Joe_ Public

From the EU commission website:

"This transition period may be extended once by two years, meaning it could remain in place until 31 December 2022."

Key word there is "once". Seems fairly fanciful to me that they'll have a fta concluded in just over 3 years from now. I guess negotiations could still go on, but by letter of the law they'd have left no later than 2022.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's a third way: hold a referendum on the Johnson deal vs either/both no Brexit and a 'no deal' hard Brexit.

Opinion polls showing support for one divided party over another - especially in the current climate - does not in any way clarify what the electorate voted for in 2016. On the other hand, a House full of people's representatives is about as close to a valid interpretation as you're going to get. You definitely can't argue that democratically elected MPs in Westminster are preventing "democratic" recourse when they have been sent there by the demos!

A referendum wouldn't solve anything here. The people already decided for Brexit in 2016 and it hasn't been honoured. If it was a Brexit vote again it wouldn't be honoured by this dysfunctional parliament. The Lib Dems are starting to see that this parliament won't vote for a second referendum either so an election seems more plausible.

What is needed now is an election in a clear policy platform to do with Brexit. If the Lib Dems won that could mean revoking Article 50. If the Labour party won then who knows. They have this bizarre policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it. Then you have the Conservatives under Johnson who actually want to leave and get on with other priorities.

A Dub in Glasgo

briany wrote: »

Under the currently proposed deal they can walk away from the table and go no-deal in 2020, However, the deal can be amended to give parliament a vote on whether to extend the transition period, and that will probably become a necessity the longer that the UK stays within the EU proper but the transition date does not budge.

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

Johnsons strategy is to get the WAB passed with minimal scrutiny, pull the legislation if questions asked, go to an election campaign to win a majority and then force through the legislation

It is a terrible terrible piece of legislation for the people in the UK

A Dub in Glasgo

theological wrote: »

A referendum wouldn't solve anything here. The people already decided for Brexit in 2016 and it hasn't been honoured. If it was a Brexit vote again it wouldn't be honoured by this dysfunctional parliament. The Lib Dems are starting to see that this parliament won't vote for a second referendum either so an election seems more plausible.

What is needed now is an election in a clear policy platform to do with Brexit. If the Lib Dems won that could mean revoking Article 50. If the Labour party won then who knows. They have this bizarre policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it. Then you have the Conservatives under Johnson who actually want to leave and get on with other priorities.

'The people' decided parliament should invoke Article 50, which is now complete. Any WA deal needs to go back to the people for endorsement

An election under the FPTP system is the worst way to solve any impasse

jimmycrackcorm

briany wrote: »

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

An Ciarraioch

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

Not to mention such negotiations are generally conducted behind the senses by civil servants, rather than national politicians.

Joe_ Public

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

Have a strong feeling the next stage, if they get there, will be as tense and probably even more protracted than the first. This gov seems too arrogant and complacent to learn anything from their abject failures of past 3 years and will walk into same traps and go on with their no deal empty threats.

Still cant understand why citizens rights ever had to be an issue. Could have been first thing sorted and some good will created on either side, suggesting mature, grown up negotiations. One more thing Theresa May has to answer for imo.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Still cant understand why citizens rights ever had to be an issue. Could have been first thing sorted and some good will created on either side, suggesting mature, grown up negotiations. One more thing Theresa May has to answer for imo.

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

It seems incredible to think that May was obsessed by freedom of movement (of all things) but she was and apparently it was one of the main factors in her hawkish Lancaster House speech.

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

May was the architect of the 'hostile environment' that led to the 'windrush generation'

She was a thoroughly unsympathetic character who deserves the distain that she will forevermore be viewed with.

seamus

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

The collapse of every empire has been overseen by a string of awful emperors. It's par for the course that only the foolish will allow themselves to be put in charge of a sinking ship.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

It seems incredible to think that May was obsessed by freedom of movement (of all things) but she was and apparently it was one of the main factors in her hawkish Lancaster House speech.

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Anthony Eden would be a happy man if he was still alive, 3 new contenders popped up within last half decade to challenge his previously uncontested title as the UKs worst post war prime minister. May was dealt a pretty terrible hand but still went about playing it in the worst way imaginable. I'll be thinking in particular of how she invoked grenfell in her resignation speech when they debate that tragedy in the commons this week.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Who wrote the book do you know? Given the proximity to her holding the office, I think it is unlikely that it was someone who could be said to be entirely impartial.

I'm not really trying to fly a flag for her but I think she was PM during what was going to be, and has proven to be, a very contentious period.

She bowed to the invoking of A50 too quickly, she was too adamant on the red lines, she used language which made it easy for her detractors to target her (no deal is better than a bad deal) and she didn't manage vocal party or government members well.

But, was this all because of her, or because of the circumstance?
I'm not suggesting she is to be lauded, but, she was handed a poisoned chalice.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Anthony Eden would be a happy man if he was still alive, 3 new contenders popped up within last half decade to challenge his previously uncontested title as the UKs worst post war prime minister. May was dealt a pretty terrible hand but still went about playing it in the worst way imaginable. I'll be thinking in particular of how she invoked grenfell in her resignation speech when they debate that tragedy in the commons this week.

The book says she wasn't a people person, didn't trust anyone and didn't even like working with her cabinet.....also claims she wasn't particularly astute or intelligent as PMs go.

trellheim

She bowed to the invoking of A50 too quickly, she was too adamant on the red lines, she used language which made it easy for her detractors to target her (no deal is better than a bad deal) and she didn't manage vocal party or government members well.

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ( her close spads) believed an Election would provide some unknowable mandate to get Brexit done ( sound familiar) and thus she went to the country in 2017 and lost a comfortable majority leaving the DUP to hold the balance of power - a situation that persists .

Read Tim Shipmans 2nd book for a lot of the detail here

Tea Shock

Starting to see calls from Tory MPs around how the new Jan 31st Brexit date now allows Johnson to go back to the EU and renegotiate the WA to one more satisfactory on the Northern Ireland protocols


I truly despair!!!

Joe_ Public

trellheim wrote: »

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ( her close spads) believed an Election would provide some unknowable mandate to get Brexit done ( sound familiar) and thus she went to the country in 2017 and lost a comfortable majority leaving the DUP to hold the balance of power - a situation that persists .

Read Tim Shipmans 2nd book for a lot of the detail here

My personal favourite was the sunday times spread which they devised to make May look more human and in touch with the people. So Hill screams the head off some underling for not doing her job and has the pm rigged out in 20k worth of gear to make her look the part. Back around the time she didnt look like a stooped 75 year old.

quokula

Tell me how wrote: »

Who wrote the book do you know? Given the proximity to her holding the office, I think it is unlikely that it was someone who could be said to be entirely impartial.

I'm not really trying to fly a flag for her but I think she was PM during what was going to be, and has proven to be, a very contentious period.

She bowed to the invoking of A50 too quickly, she was too adamant on the red lines, she used language which made it easy for her detractors to target her (no deal is better than a bad deal) and she didn't manage vocal party or government members well.

But, was this all because of her, or because of the circumstance?
I'm not suggesting she is to be lauded, but, she was handed a poisoned chalice.

She played her part in creating those circumstances. She was the one always pushing immigration up the agenda, creating the hostile environment, and demonising immigrants every chance she got prior to the referendum.

Then in the wake of a very narrowly split vote, she drew up the red lines that meant pushing for the hardest, most acrimonious Brexit possible. There was very much an opportunity after the referendum for cross party consensus and something like an EFTA style arrangement that recognised how close the vote was. But she couldn’t stomach that because she couldn’t stand the thought of retaining any form of freedom of movement, or retaining European protections of human rights.

liamtech

Just Reading that the new UUP leader Steve Aiken is refusing pacts with the DUP, and the DUP are going ballistic about it

Worth noting that this could have a serious effect in the NI election - as Aiken is a staunch remainer - could be a big coup for northern ireland unionist MPs shouting for a peoples vote - although could also mean SF take extra seats

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/does-ulster-unionist-party-have-arlene-foster-rattled

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/uup-leader-in-waiting-steve-aiken-rules-out-pact-and-slams-dup-for-tarnishing-unionism-38631900.html

MPFGLB

seamus wrote: »

The collapse of every empire has been overseen by a string of awful emperors. It's par for the course that only the foolish will allow themselves to be put in charge of a sinking ship.

The British Empire collapsed along time ago ..need to go back to Anthony Eden


Bring on the election I say

Labour will be trounced such is the Brexit partisan feeling in the country
And hopefully this will force Corbyn out
London a Labour stronghold will see many lose their seats

I would like to see DUP lose alot of seats too as they have upheld the Tories and this mess when they should have backed a remain 2nd ref

Hopefully the Bexit Party will also not get the votes they want as Boris will make them irrelevant

It is possible Lib Dems could be comes the 2nd biggest party
And SNP will make big gains in Scotland

Even though this is not a second referendum it could be a GE result that could bring the MPs to HoC who would back a 2nd referendum.

Tony Blair knows the risks to Labour with a GE and he is right

briany

MPFGLB wrote: »

It is possible Lib Dems could be comes the 2nd biggest party

Let's not go nuts.

MadYaker

seamus wrote: »

The collapse of every empire has been overseen by a string of awful emperors. It's par for the course that only the foolish will allow themselves to be put in charge of a sinking ship.

I thought this when Boris said he was going for PM and I still think it now. Why not let somebody else waste their political career on brexit.

gooch2k9

Tea Shock wrote: »

Starting to see calls from Tory MPs around how the new Jan 31st Brexit date now allows Johnson to go back to the EU and renegotiate the WA to one more satisfactory on the Northern Ireland protocols


I truly despair!!!

Can't see that happening. He told Ian Og yesterday that the deal was what he was going with. Also the extension terms state no negotiation of the deal. I know the previous extension had that term too but he hasn't much left to concede without losing support elsewhere this time.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

A referendum wouldn't solve anything here. The people already decided for Brexit in 2016 and it hasn't been honoured.

You keep going back to this point, even though (a) the people voted for the idea of Brexit, not the detail; and (b) the HoC honoured that vote by triggering Article 50 and put the UK on the road towards leaving the EU.

Running an election as a Brexit referndum is completely and utterly daft. The resulting government will be in power for five years. If (allowing a unicorn into the argument for a second) the LibDems were returned with a majority and revoked Art.50 on Day 1, would you say that all of their other policies should be enacted afterwards as the Will of the People?

Furthermore, GEs in the UK are not truly democratic because of FPTP. I'm not sure who it was I heard saying it on Sky yesterday, but treating the GE as a proxy Brexit referendum means it's entirely possible that the country would see a "majority" in favour of a hard Brexit even though 60% of the electorate voted against it.

Enzokk

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Can't see that happening. He told Ian Og yesterday that the deal was what he was going with. Also the extension terms state no negotiation of the deal. I know the previous extension had that term too but he hasn't much left to concede without losing support elsewhere this time.

I think the EU is running out of patience, but like they did with Johnson if Corbyn would become PM they would surely give him a chance for a chat about the WA.

I don't think Johnson has any chance of getting anything else, he has had his turn so even if he goes there with a 100 seat majority the EU has had their negotiations with Johnson.