Brexit - the final throes....

And today we find out that the referral to the ECJ has been made and they will hold a hearing on 27th November to establish whether A50 can be unilaterally cancelled by the UK.  

However we aren't likely to get an answer for some time (often 3-6 months after referral for expedited cases) in this case the ECJ accepts that there is some urgency though.

Some details here:

https://www.standard.co.uk/new...brexit-a3983386.html

Stephen packer posted:
thebigfredc posted:

What planet are you on - I think the surstromming has affected your mind.

Why are you consistently rude?

Oh come on .....the surstromning remark was fun and JLarson saw it as such....he didn’t say it was rude. 

In contrat I have been called ignorant, an idiot, a facist and a racist on this thread and on its predecessor. 

I admit to resembling the first two remarks at times but facist and racist are far worse than rude. I didn’t go whinging to the mods though,

thebigfredc posted:

I don't understand..I presume cancel means postpone, draw-back from, desist.......why would the UK Government do that when we gave them a clear mandate in an historic referendum after a public discourse dating back to Mrs Thatcher?

 

Looks like this has been raised by a Scottish politician, the objective being to rally enough support within Parliament to stop Brexit if whatever deal Mrs.May puts on the table November 27th isn't enough of a crowd-pleaser. When it comes to the "will of the People" they will probably point to the (supposed) shift in public opinion to Remain as their mandate for bringing an Action. 

thebigfredc posted:

I don't understand..I presume cancel means postpone, draw-back from, desist.......why would the UK Government do that when we gave them a clear mandate in an historic referendum after a public discourse dating back to Mrs Thatcher?

 

Cancel means cancel!

It wasn't a clear mandate, for it to be a clear mandate (rather than just a marginal victory) would have required a majority of the electorate to have voted in favour of Brexit.

For me this is not about repeating old arguments about the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 referendum and much more about what happens if HMG can't muster enough support in the House of Commons for its proposal for how the UK should leave the EU.  What happens then? The legal interpretation of Article 50 could be relevant. 

MDS posted:

For me this is not about repeating old arguments about the democratic legitimacy of the 2016 referendum and much more about what happens if HMG can't muster enough support in the House of Commons for its proposal for how the UK should leave the EU.  What happens then? The legal interpretation of Article 50 could be relevant. 

Interesting then that the Tory government should do everything they can to avoid this happening.  Why would they *not* want to be in possession of the full facts and operating from a position of ignorance?

Why, also, would the PM not be supplying the full legal advise on the Irish Border 'backstop' plan to the cabinet?

Personally I like to make decisions when I have as many facts as I possibly can.  It seems that the Government/PM is deliberately trying to reduce the information flow while making *the* most important decision in the last 50 years (or maybe more).

Why would this be?

Today in the News:

Jo Johnson has quit as transport minister and called for the public to have a fresh say on Brexit.

The MP, who is Boris Johnson's brother, said the withdrawal deal currently being negotiated with the European Union "will be a terrible mistake".

Arguing Britain was "on the brink of the greatest crisis" since World War Two, he said what was on offer wasn't "anything like what was promised".

Downing Street thanked him for his work but ruled out another referendum, because Brexit is the will of the Tory cabinet, and the people can go suffer the consequences.

Jo Johnson very sensibly voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum while his mad brother Boris, who quit as foreign secretary in July, is a leading Brexiteer.

But in a warning to his brother and other bonkers Brexiteers, he added: "Inflicting such serious economic and political harm on the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the minds of the public".

The "democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say", he argued.

 

naim_nymph posted:

Today in the News:

Jo Johnson has quit as transport minister and called for the public to have a fresh say on Brexit.

The MP, who is Boris Johnson's brother, said the withdrawal deal currently being negotiated with the European Union "will be a terrible mistake".

Arguing Britain was "on the brink of the greatest crisis" since World War Two, he said what was on offer wasn't "anything like what was promised".

Downing Street thanked him for his work but ruled out another referendum, because Brexit is the will of the Tory cabinet, and the people can go suffer the consequences.

Jo Johnson very sensibly voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum while his mad brother Boris, who quit as foreign secretary in July, is a leading Brexiteer.

But in a warning to his brother and other bonkers Brexiteers, he added: "Inflicting such serious economic and political harm on the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the minds of the public".

The "democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say", he argued.

 

I'm sure "bonkers Brexiteers" as they've been labelled are simply quaking in their boots at Jo Johnson's warning, a man whose only distinguishing feature is being Boris Johnson's younger brother. 

Friends

Been staying away from this thread as we’ve got plenty to keep us occupied on this side of the pond. But I was struck be Jo Johnson’s thinking. I guess it’s just human to think that if we could just get a makeover we could do better as he seems to suggest. I think the assumption behind doing a Brexit re-vote is that since all the lying and exaggeration ( if that were in fact the case) has been exposed, every right thinking British citizen  will come to their senses and vote to remain. The underlying assumption is that absent that so called lying and exaggeration, the first vote would have been different. Maybe, maybe not. Reviewing this discussion from the beginning one finds some very hardened positions in both directions. We can speculate about what might have been but we’ll never really know.

My guess is that a new vote might well be different but also still very close. Then what will you do? You think you have a disaster now!

Sincere good luck 

Clay Bingham posted:

Friends

Been staying away from this thread as we’ve got plenty to keep us occupied on this side of the pond. But I was struck be Jo Johnson’s thinking. I guess it’s just human to think that if we could just get a makeover we could do better as he seems to suggest. I think the assumption behind doing a Brexit re-vote is that since all the lying and exaggeration ( if that were in fact the case) has been exposed, every right thinking British citizen  will come to their senses and vote to remain. The underlying assumption is that absent that so called lying and exaggeration, the first vote would have been different. Maybe, maybe not. Reviewing this discussion from the beginning one finds some very hardened positions in both directions. We can speculate about what might have been but we’ll never really know.

My guess is that a new vote might well be different but also still very close. Then what will you do? You think you have a disaster now!

Sincere good luck 

Not sure how a second vote (with the information on *what* the deal is likely to be) would be more of a disaster if it was close.

We're in a situation where many of us believe the referendum was fatally flawed and that leaving with what we know now is not the will of the majority of the people.  Many others believe that we should simply go ahead because of the referendum result in 2016 and give the response 'both sides lied' and 'politicians always fail to deliver on their promises' (amongst others).

If we had a vote on the deal and the vote was still to leave then I think it would make it difficult for people like me to continue complaining about process etc. (this assumes that none of the dodgy facebook stuff, campaign funding etc. occurs...)

If, on the other, hand the vote was to reject the deal and remain, then I would expect that the 'leavers' would feel cheated.

I don't think we will be in a worse position than we are now, it just might be a different segment of society that's upset.

Once we took an advisory referendum (which didn't have the safeguards you would have with a proper 'people's vote') and then *after* it had been passed in parliament misused it through the statement that 'we will do what you tell us' accepting a simple majority for such a significant decision I think we were doomed to have a split society.  I suspect whatever happens this split continues for many years to come, it can't be avoided.

Today's political developments have been interesting. It looks like No 10 is doing a lot of work behind the scenes to garner support for its proposed exit deal which seemed to have led to junior Johnson's resignation and the DUP saying they can't support it either. Must say I'm a bit puzzled by No 10's game-plan here as it's looking less and less likely that TM's proposal will receive the necessary level of support in the House of Commons.  The proposal seems to be losing support of both brexiteers and remainers on her back-benches.  The Labour party will likely whip to vote against because it wants a general election so the prospect of some Labour MPs 'doing the right thing for the country' (as TM will see it) seem to be diminishing too.  Surely TM and her chief whip see all this. The previous plan, looking to her backbenchers, seemed to be 'vote for my proposal as it's the best we're going to get or you risk a general election'.  That doesn't seem to be playing too well and she must know that. Could she really be privately trying to engineer another referendum while publicly stating her opposition to one?

Jonners posted:
naim_nymph posted:

Today in the News:

Jo Johnson has quit as transport minister and called for the public to have a fresh say on Brexit.

The MP, who is Boris Johnson's brother, said the withdrawal deal currently being negotiated with the European Union "will be a terrible mistake".

Arguing Britain was "on the brink of the greatest crisis" since World War Two, he said what was on offer wasn't "anything like what was promised".

Downing Street thanked him for his work but ruled out another referendum, because Brexit is the will of the Tory cabinet, and the people can go suffer the consequences.

Jo Johnson very sensibly voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum while his mad brother Boris, who quit as foreign secretary in July, is a leading Brexiteer.

But in a warning to his brother and other bonkers Brexiteers, he added: "Inflicting such serious economic and political harm on the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the minds of the public".

The "democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say", he argued.

 

I'm sure "bonkers Brexiteers" as they've been labelled are simply quaking in their boots at Jo Johnson's warning, a man whose only distinguishing feature is being Boris Johnson's younger brother. 

Jo Johnson has distinguished himself by becoming the Conservative MP for Orpington, voting Remain, and was also the Transport Minister.

 

naim_nymph posted:
Jonners posted:
naim_nymph posted:

Today in the News:

Jo Johnson has quit as transport minister and called for the public to have a fresh say on Brexit.

The MP, who is Boris Johnson's brother, said the withdrawal deal currently being negotiated with the European Union "will be a terrible mistake".

Arguing Britain was "on the brink of the greatest crisis" since World War Two, he said what was on offer wasn't "anything like what was promised".

Downing Street thanked him for his work but ruled out another referendum, because Brexit is the will of the Tory cabinet, and the people can go suffer the consequences.

Jo Johnson very sensibly voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum while his mad brother Boris, who quit as foreign secretary in July, is a leading Brexiteer.

But in a warning to his brother and other bonkers Brexiteers, he added: "Inflicting such serious economic and political harm on the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the minds of the public".

The "democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say", he argued.

 

I'm sure "bonkers Brexiteers" as they've been labelled are simply quaking in their boots at Jo Johnson's warning, a man whose only distinguishing feature is being Boris Johnson's younger brother. 

Jo Johnson has distinguished himself by becoming the Conservative MP for Orpington, voting Remain, and was also the Transport Minister.

 

I recall somebody else issuing a solemn warning before the Referendum. That was the President of the United States. That went well well. Not.

A confederacy of dunces.

“At this moment in our national journey, the government makes much more sense when you realise it can only be a massive hidden-camera simulation designed solely to amuse the occupants of a distant planet. Clustered round a visual port somewhere in Andromeda galaxy, interconnected strings of aliens cry with laughter every week at top-rating series Big Brexit, in which the hapless denizens of a Truman-like shitshow fail to realise they are being taken for a ride by their competition-winner overlords. Every UK resident stars.”

Stack up those food cans, people... 😱 

Jonners posted:
naim_nymph posted:

Jo Johnson has distinguished himself by becoming the Conservative MP for Orpington, voting Remain, and was also the Transport Minister.

 

I recall somebody else issuing a solemn warning before the Referendum. That was the President of the United States. That went well well. Not.

You're right that Barack Obama did warn that Brexit was not the best thing for the UK, also that his advice was disregarded.

Fast forward to today and it's not even happened but 'the simplest trade deal in history' is nowhere near negotiated (we're still arguing about terms of withdrawal to enter the transition phase where we then negotiate the trade deal!), falling back to WTO seems more complicated than first seen when the US (and NZ/Aus) are threatening to block our WTO schedules, there seems to be chaos in government over what we actually *want* let alone if it's something we can negotiate.

Our government looks haphazard and frankly incompetent from outside.

I could go on.

naim_nymph posted:
...

Jo Johnson has distinguished himself by becoming the Conservative MP for Orpington, voting Remain, and was also the Transport Minister.

 

Debs, I'm surprised that you consider someone becoming a Conservative MP as having distinguished himself!  

Stephen packer posted:
Jonners posted:
naim_nymph posted:

Jo Johnson has distinguished himself by becoming the Conservative MP for Orpington, voting Remain, and was also the Transport Minister.

 

I recall somebody else issuing a solemn warning before the Referendum. That was the President of the United States. That went well well. Not.

You're right that Barack Obama did warn that Brexit was not the best thing for the UK, also that his advice was disregarded.

Fast forward to today and it's not even happened but 'the simplest trade deal in history' is nowhere near negotiated (we're still arguing about terms of withdrawal to enter the transition phase where we then negotiate the trade deal!), falling back to WTO seems more complicated than first seen when the US (and NZ/Aus) are threatening to block our WTO schedules, there seems to be chaos in government over what we actually *want* let alone if it's something we can negotiate.

Our government looks haphazard and frankly incompetent from outside.

I could go on.

I've not got a problem with a Referendum, either on the transition deal or whether we apply to go back into the EU or not. Let's just think about the practicalities though. If a deal is put to the EU for the transition which they'll live with, it then has to get past the DUP, Parliament and the Lords. Then I imagine we'll hang around in the Customs Union whilst the country puts it to the vote which will be what, a year, 18 months? Let's say it gets shot down, back to square one then?

What about applying to go back into the EU, we hold a vote on that and then presumably we're back in Customs Union purgatory again whilst Mrs.May and her crack team of negotiators put a deal together the EU likes. God knows how long that will take and then presumably we'd have to put that to the vote and round we go again.

I've no problem with referendums in principal but I've had a gutful of politicians discovering they've got a conscience after all and resigning just so they can jump on a bandwagon, particularly if they belong to the self-serving Johnson clan. 

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

The “deal” being proposed is such an act of self harm that we shouldn’t go through with it. We should just leave - the EU clearly isn’t interested in any sensible settlement - they are seeking to emasculate the UK. We need to leave outright - but the politicians don’t appear to the necessary balls ...

Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

Repeating the referendum would be a bad idea.  Voting when (a little) more informed on the deal doesn't seem so bad to me, I agree it would be divisive but if we crash out the nation's divided anyway.

I'm not convinced that all leavers voted to 'just leave'- only a few weeks before the referendum Farage (for example) was stating that he was increasingly convinced by the Norway option.  Many others are on record stating things like 'leaving the single market would be madness' etc.   The great thing about the leave campaign was that there wasn't one, there were a multitude of campaigns:
- Lexiteer?  We've got some labour MPs for you.
- Free Marketeer? John Redwood's just over there.
- Worried about immigration?  There's Nigel for you 
and so on...

Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

It CANNOT divide people more - complete division is there already! But it can ensure that the current will of the people is followed, which is vital - and I wouldnot raise the slightest objection of that is to proceed with Brexit, however ‘hard’. But I doubt Ny Brexiteers are will ing to say the equivalent should the answer be to remain...

Innocent Bystander posted:
Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

It CANNOT divide people more - complete division is there already! But it can ensure that the current will of the people is followed, which is vital - and I wouldnot raise the slightest objection of that is to proceed with Brexit, however ‘hard’. But I doubt Ny Brexiteers are will ing to say the equivalent should the answer be to remain...

However this plays out there will be divisions. But, regardless, our political leaders and MPs should be doing what they think is in the best interests of the country, even if that appears to conflict with party loyalties or personal ambition. At moment they appear to be heading towards an outcome that will leave the majority of people on both sides of the argument dissatisfied: the leavers for leaving; the brexiteers because the terms of the exit are seemingly worse than staying in the EU.  Too few of our politicians are showing statesman-like leadership but they aren't stupid and I think will be worried about the 'everyone feels a loser' scenario for which the electorate will rightly blame them.  I suspect that is why throwing the issue back to the people through some further vote is looking increasingly attractive to more and more of our politicians, as most recently expounded by Jo Johnson. 

 

ynwa250505 posted:
Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

The “deal” being proposed is such an act of self harm that we shouldn’t go through with it. We should just leave - the EU clearly isn’t interested in any sensible settlement - they are seeking to emasculate the UK. We need to leave outright - but the politicians don’t appear to the necessary balls ...

You've consistently said we should leave the EU without a deal. Fair play for sticking to your argument. But I think you are now suspecting that our politicians don't have the stomach for such an outcome. So what do you think will now happen (rather than want to happen)? 

MDS posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

It CANNOT divide people more - complete division is there already! But it can ensure that the current will of the people is followed, which is vital - and I wouldnot raise the slightest objection of that is to proceed with Brexit, however ‘hard’. But I doubt Ny Brexiteers are will ing to say the equivalent should the answer be to remain...

However this plays out there will be divisions. But, regardless, our political leaders and MPs should be doing what they think is in the best interests of the country, even if that appears to conflict with party loyalties or personal ambition. At moment they appear to be heading towards an outcome that will leave the majority of people on both sides of the argument dissatisfied: the leavers for leaving; the brexiteers because the terms of the exit are seemingly worse than staying in the EU.  Too few of our politicians are showing statesman-like leadership but they aren't stupid and I think will be worried about the 'everyone feels a loser' scenario for which the electorate will rightly blame them.  I suspect that is why throwing the issue back to the people through some further vote is looking increasingly attractive to more and more of our politicians, as most recently expounded by Jo Johnson. 

 

Our political leaders and MPs should be implementing the outcome of the referendum rather doing their best to frustrate it.

MDS posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

The “deal” being proposed is such an act of self harm that we shouldn’t go through with it. We should just leave - the EU clearly isn’t interested in any sensible settlement - they are seeking to emasculate the UK. We need to leave outright - but the politicians don’t appear to the necessary balls ...

You've consistently said we should leave the EU without a deal. Fair play for sticking to your argument. But I think you are now suspecting that our politicians don't have the stomach for such an outcome. So what do you think will now happen (rather than want to happen)? 

I really don’t know what will happen because our political leader(s) are a spineless, lily-livered bunch that have repeatedly reneged on their earlier statements/commitments - their unreliability makes it difficult to predict outcomes. However, it seems to me that they are determined to keep the UK in the EU - an institution that is so obviously doomed to failure, but the cowards are just too scared to do the right thing - which is to leave and then negotiate (or not) from a position of strength.

If there is a general election, I’ll vote for the loony left hoping that the Tories get a few years in the wilderness where they can sit and reflect on their f**king uselessness. In the meantime, the EU will keep blindly following their disastrous economic and social policies that are responsible for the rise of nationalism/populism throughout Europe.

 

ynwa250505 posted:
MDS posted:
ynwa250505 posted:
Moog posted:

Another referendum is a terrible idea it will just divide people even more, the first one was bad enough, a second one would be worse.  The whole point would be to keep our fingers crossed and hope we get a different result from the first one.  At the end of the day leavers voted to leave with no deal in place.  (well that's response i've had from any leaver) We either need to leave outright or the politicians have some balls and say the decision to leave is an act of such self harm that we can't go through with it.   

The “deal” being proposed is such an act of self harm that we shouldn’t go through with it. We should just leave - the EU clearly isn’t interested in any sensible settlement - they are seeking to emasculate the UK. We need to leave outright - but the politicians don’t appear to the necessary balls ...

You've consistently said we should leave the EU without a deal. Fair play for sticking to your argument. But I think you are now suspecting that our politicians don't have the stomach for such an outcome. So what do you think will now happen (rather than want to happen)? 

I really don’t know what will happen because our political leader(s) are a spineless, lily-livered bunch that have repeatedly reneged on their earlier statements/commitments - their unreliability makes it difficult to predict outcomes. However, it seems to me that they are determined to keep the UK in the EU - an institution that is so obviously doomed to failure, but the cowards are just too scared to do the right thing - which is to leave and then negotiate (or not) from a position of strength.

If there is a general election, I’ll vote for the loony left hoping that the Tories get a few years in the wilderness where they can sit and reflect on their f**king uselessness. In the meantime, the EU will keep blindly following their disastrous economic and social policies that are responsible for the rise of nationalism/populism throughout Europe.

 

As 11.00 passes and reflecting further on my prior comment (above) on this very sacred of sacred days, I think it behoves us all to contrast the bravery, gallantry and sacrifice of the men and women who gave everything in the pursuit of freedom, independence and democracy with the snivelling, cowardly, backstabbing crowd that pass for our political leaders. It is a thought that applies both here and abroad (imho). Personally, I am filled with sadness and despair at the comparison.

ynwa250505 posted:

As 11.00 passes and reflecting further on my prior comment (above) on this very sacred of sacred days, I think it behoves us all to contrast the bravery, gallantry and sacrifice of the men and women who gave everything in the pursuit of freedom, independence and democracy...

At last a plea for Europe... Thank you.

ynwa250505 posted: 

Our political leaders and MPs should be implementing the outcome of the referendum rather doing their best to frustrate it.

That's not their role.

They are not representatives, they are there to make their best decisions, not to take our direction.  If they feel that implementing the decision from the referendum is damaging then they are bound to reject it.

What, I think, we're seeing is as we get closer to the 'crunch' more and more of them are finding their role hard to do and we can see support for brexit in parliament evaporating.   

I think it's possible that the Tory party switch to either pro-remain or pro-people's vote in an attempt to out-flank Labour.  Corbyn has played this so badly.  However I think we know exactly what he wants anyway, frankly I suspect he voted to leave.  

Stephen packer posted:
ynwa250505 posted: 

Our political leaders and MPs should be implementing the outcome of the referendum rather doing their best to frustrate it.

That's not their role.

They are not representatives, they are there to make their best decisions, not to take our direction.  If they feel that implementing the decision from the referendum is damaging then they are bound to reject it.

What, I think, we're seeing is as we get closer to the 'crunch' more and more of them are finding their role hard to do and we can see support for brexit in parliament evaporating.   

I think it's possible that the Tory party switch to either pro-remain or pro-people's vote in an attempt to out-flank Labour.  Corbyn has played this so badly.  However I think we know exactly what he wants anyway, frankly I suspect he voted to leave.  

Hasn't he just. I find his utterances on Brexit depressingly bland and vacuous.  TM seems to be making a real mess of the negotiations, partly because of the divisions within her own party but also because she seems incapable of devising and implementing a coherent strategy. But Corbyn's regular cry: 'if you can't negotiate a decent deal, stand aside and let me do it' is in my view empty rhetoric.  Corbyn has no coherent policy on EU exit and to my mind seems even less capable of leading the UK's negotiations where skill in deploying the art of constructive compromise is vital.  Look at his inept handling of anti-seminetisim within the Labour party. It's all rather depressing.        

I had a read of the Brexit stuff in the Mail on Sunday today, a paper I normally abhor because of the way it plays to prejudices, but I occasionally like to read stuff with which I know I disagree as it forces me to reflect on differing views.

Anyway, what struck me was the strong negative tone towards TM's brexit handling. It didn't feel like I was reading a very right-leaning newspaper.  The criticism it contained felt more like the stuff normally reserved for a Labour government.  I was also interested to read Jacob Rees-Mogg's article.  In this he was proposing a 'no deal plus' - effectively paying the EU £20bn to continue to be nice to us once we've left and so avoid the worst consequences of a hard exit.  He description of this, written in his usual polite and measured style, contained nothing about how the Ireland problem would be solved, so it didn't strike me as a potential 'game-changer', but the strongest impression I had was the degree of desperation on the part of his hard Brexiteer position his article revealed.  It seemed to me JR-M can see the dream of Brexit evaporating and is recognising that, in the event of a negotiated departure proving impossible, just walking away next March is looking less and less likely.   

MDS posted:

I had a read of the Brexit stuff in the Mail on Sunday today, a paper I normally abhor because of the way it plays to prejudices, but I occasionally like to read stuff with which I know I disagree as it forces me to reflect on differing views.

Anyway, what struck me was the strong negative tone towards TM's brexit handling. It didn't feel like I was reading a very right-leaning newspaper.  The criticism it contained felt more like the stuff normally reserved for a Labour government.  I was also interested to read Jacob Rees-Mogg's article.  In this he was proposing a 'no deal plus' - effectively paying the EU £20bn to continue to be nice to us once we've left and so avoid the worst consequences of a hard exit.  He description of this, written in his usual polite and measured style, contained nothing about how the Ireland problem would be solved, so it didn't strike me as a potential 'game-changer', but the strongest impression I had was the degree of desperation on the part of his hard Brexiteer position his article revealed.  It seemed to me JR-M can see the dream of Brexit evaporating and is recognising that, in the event of a negotiated departure proving impossible, just walking away next March is looking less and less likely.   

So, JMR now thinks that paying the EU and extra £20Bn is good value to get them to sign up to an exit treaty which isn't totally disastrous to the UK, merely very very bad compared to what we currently have. This equates to two years' worth of net UK contributions to the EU coffers (see below).

Remarkable how far Brexiteer oligarchs will go with public money to avoid the forthcoming scrutiny of their funds stashed away in tax havens as a result of the EU's Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, effective as of Jan 2019).  

I have removed some posts which seemed to go off on a tangent. If members continue to wish to hijack this thread to argue about politics outside of the EU/Brexit debate here, then don’t be surprised if your posting privileges are curtailed in future.

To all others, you may carry on, but please stay on topic. Thank you.

MDS posted:.  

Hasn't he just. I find his utterances on Brexit depressingly bland and vacuous.  TM seems to be making a real mess of the negotiations, partly because of the divisions within her own party but also because she seems incapable of devising and implementing a coherent strategy. But Corbyn's regular cry: 'if you can't negotiate a decent deal, stand aside and let me do it' is in my view empty rhetoric.  Corbyn has no coherent policy on EU exit and to my mind seems even less capable of leading the UK's negotiations where skill in deploying the art of constructive compromise is vital.  Look at his inept handling of anti-seminetisim within the Labour party. It's all rather depressing.        

I heard an interview with labours Emily Thornberry and she actually beleived that labour would be able to negotiate a deal with the same advantages as paying EU Members. This is something every EU leader has said never will happen. But I guess labour can promise stuff safely now as they will not get the chance (there is no time left). 

The big question is what happens if the goverments deal is killed in parliament. I doubt any elected politician would like to be held responsible for a no-deal exit - the price for the voters/country is to high. Can the goverment do an emergency-break, talk to the EU and agree to retract the A50 letter?  Or would that cause more problems than it solved?

Stephen packer posted:
ynwa250505 posted: 

Our political leaders and MPs should be implementing the outcome of the referendum rather doing their best to frustrate it.

That's not their role.

They are not representatives, they are there to make their best decisions, not to take our direction.  If they feel that implementing the decision from the referendum is damaging then they are bound to reject it.

What, I think, we're seeing is as we get closer to the 'crunch' more and more of them are finding their role hard to do and we can see support for brexit in parliament evaporating.   

I think it's possible that the Tory party switch to either pro-remain or pro-people's vote in an attempt to out-flank Labour.  Corbyn has played this so badly.  However I think we know exactly what he wants anyway, frankly I suspect he voted to leave.  

It IS indeed their role and they ARE indeed our representatives and they are there to discharge the will of the electorate.

jlarsson posted:
MDS posted:.  

Hasn't he just. I find his utterances on Brexit depressingly bland and vacuous.  TM seems to be making a real mess of the negotiations, partly because of the divisions within her own party but also because she seems incapable of devising and implementing a coherent strategy. But Corbyn's regular cry: 'if you can't negotiate a decent deal, stand aside and let me do it' is in my view empty rhetoric.  Corbyn has no coherent policy on EU exit and to my mind seems even less capable of leading the UK's negotiations where skill in deploying the art of constructive compromise is vital.  Look at his inept handling of anti-seminetisim within the Labour party. It's all rather depressing.        

I heard an interview with labours Emily Thornberry and she actually beleived that labour would be able to negotiate a deal with the same advantages as paying EU Members. This is something every EU leader has said never will happen. But I guess labour can promise stuff safely now as they will not get the chance (there is no time left). 

The big question is what happens if the goverments deal is killed in parliament. I doubt any elected politician would like to be held responsible for a no-deal exit - the price for the voters/country is to high. Can the goverment do an emergency-break, talk to the EU and agree to retract the A50 letter?  Or would that cause more problems than it solved?

If “the goverments deal” (sic) is killed in Parliament, then we should simply exit the EU. No delay, no further discussion and certainly no retraction. No problem.

jlarsson posted:

I heard an interview with labours Emily Thornberry and she actually beleived that labour would be able to negotiate a deal with the same advantages as paying EU Members. This is something every EU leader has said never will happen. But I guess labour can promise stuff safely now as they will not get the chance (there is no time left). 

The big question is what happens if the goverments deal is killed in parliament. I doubt any elected politician would like to be held responsible for a no-deal exit - the price for the voters/country is to high. Can the goverment do an emergency-break, talk to the EU and agree to retract the A50 letter?  Or would that cause more problems than it solved?

I think we're pretty much in uncharted waters.

With a little luck the Government should find out before 29th of March *if* A50 can be retracted without EU agreement via the ECJ judgement.   I think there are also a few legal challenges on whether A50 was done 'legally' according to UK law (my non-legal view is these are grasping at straws).

If the Government wanted to cancel A50 and needed EU agreement, then I'm sure an extension of A50 would be allowed, but I'm also sure there would be an awful price to pay (say goodbye to various hard-won rebates and opt-outs).

Frankly I think the UK's a bit stuffed whatever happens now.  Sadly our Government didn't know what they wanted, didn't know what their back-benchers would accept *before* they kicked the whole process off.  A bunch of incompetents.

My hope (but I think it's unlikely) is that the deal gets voted down, that the government falls and that a government of national unity (excuse the clear irony...) forms from the pragmatists in the Tory and Labour party plus the SNP and Liberal Democrats and this then gets an opportunity to re-start with the EU, suspending the A50 process.

I'll be demonstrating (again) this week after work at Westminster against this sad and sorry process. 

It's a mad world where a mid-50s 'technology executive' is involved in political demonstrations- something I thought I'd given up with Rock against Racism and various anti-National Front activities in my teens/early 20s.

Add Reply

Likes (2)
fathings catPcd
×
×
×
×