Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

10000maniacs

If May does not get the legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop from the EU tomorrow, she has two choices, i.e. to agree to a second referendum or walk. Those 117 Tories will vote against her current deal.

Kermit.de.frog

Rees Mogg visiting the peasant land. Quite funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIt3PM5DF_c

seamus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Britain, the great empire, can't have a lame duck as it's leader.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think like this.

It's a genuinely scary time for British politics. Frustration that May is untouchable could cause some of the more radicalised Brexiteers to think about doing the worst.

briany

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Rees Mogg visiting the peasant land. Quite funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIt3PM5DF_c

I wonder if talking to those chavs made him give much thought to the idea of reintroducing workhouses? I'd say that in this time when things have swung back to the right, he'd get a bit of support if he publicly voiced the idea.

J Mysterio

If you think about it, 200 votes for her is almost 200 votes for her stewardship and thus, by extension, the Brexit negotiations, assuming she can get a new bow on the deal. The government now have a rough idea of what numbers she might possibly hope for and how many they might have to convince in the next weeks.

Winning a confidence vote is often a strange boost. I don't think labour will call a vote in parliament right now and they might let this trundle on till the next meaningful vote at the end of January.

May will have to keep pushing the unity line -
for Britain and the UK! - and try to draw in so many from Labour and the others as she can.

Its alarming to see how so many UK commentators seem to be talking about the DUP at the moment, increasing their relevance. Many elements in the UK clearly want to pressure the EU to screw Ireland, despite the fact that the EU have been steadfast in their support of us. Is there any way for May or the EU to placate the DUP? I don't think so.

For some reason 'the backstop' is now the focus of why the deal is 'bad' for the UK.

Headshot

seamus wrote: »

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think like this.

It's a genuinely scary time for British politics. Frustration that May is untouchable could cause some of the more radicalised Brexiteers to think about doing the worst.

It's a blessing she's untouchable when you look at the other possible contenders for prime minister.

Imagine the ****ing likes or Boris Johnson or worse Mog as PM. It's a scary thought for me

Infini

seamus wrote: »

I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think like this.

It's a genuinely scary time for British politics. Frustration that May is untouchable could cause some of the more radicalised Brexiteers to think about doing the worst.

She could also carry out her threat to call off Brexit as well and direct the blame at others for it. That would be the one trump card she has left. I don't think she wants to go down as the PM who brought down Britain no matter how stubborn she might be and she knows noone else will be able to challenge her for a year. If all else fails she could call this whole thing off and end it rather than let a crash happen parliment might be divided but not a majority of then are dense enough to ruin the country over it. If the call to end Brexit is made it will pass considering the alternative.

10000maniacs

J Mysterio wrote: »

If you think about it, 200 votes for her is almost 200 votes for her stewardship and thus, by extension, the Brexit negotiations, assuming she can get a new bow on the deal. The government now have a rough idea of what numbers she might possibly hope for and how many they might have to convince in the next weeks.

Winning a confidence vote is often a strange boost. I don't think labour will call a vote in parliament right now and they might let this trundle on till the next meaningful vote at the end of January.

May will have to keep pushing the unity line -
for Britain and the UK! - and try to draw in so many from Labour and the others as she can.

Its alarming to see how so many UK commentators seem to be talking about the DUP at the moment, increasing their relevance. Many elements in the UK clearly want to pressure the EU to screw Ireland, despite the fact that the EU have been steadfast in their support of us. Is there any way for May or the EU to placate the DUP? I don't think so.

For some reason 'the backstop' is now the focus of why the deal is 'bad' for the UK.

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

J Mysterio

10000maniacs wrote: »

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

The EU dont want to offer a 'sunset clause' on a 'backstop'.

McGiver

awec wrote:

The UK is heading for a crisis. No deal is a disaster, the government's plan is going down the toilet and the opposition have nothing to offer instead.

While Trump and Putin are laughing. They are the true winners. The UK paralysed for years and thrown into political crisis. This level of destabilisation is sufficient to distract from and/or prevent any action being taken with regards Russia actually being involved in Ukrainian insurgency for years and long term intervention in Syria.

The EU is affected only partially by this Russian collusion but it's certainly destabilising as well.

Now after Brexit, they will keep supporting and aiding Front National, Northern League and AfD as their next step.

10000maniacs

J Mysterio wrote: »

The EU dont want to offer a 'sunset clause' on a 'backstop'.

I never said they did. But that's the minimum that a lot of those 117 Tories and the DUP will accept to vote with the deal.

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

The EU dont want to offer a 'sunset clause' on a 'backstop'.

They wont. If they dont accept the backstop before Brexit they will have to after and thats if we don't demand a border poll to try and solve the issue altogether.

Laois_Man

Infini wrote: »

She could also carry out her threat to call off Brexit as well and direct the blame at others for it. That would be the one trump card she has left. I don't think she wants to go down as the PM who brought down Britain no matter how stubborn she might be and she knows noone else will be able to challenge her for a year. If all else fails she could call this whole thing off and end it rather than let a crash happen parliment might be divided but not a majority of then are dense enough to ruin the country over it. If the call to end Brexit is made it will pass considering the alternative.

How can she call off Brexit when it is already enshrined in UK law that they exit the EU on March 28th? Wouldn't it need a new law, passed thru parliament, that supersedes that one?

robinph

10000maniacs wrote: »

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

The 200 that voted for her tonight are certainly not all going to be voting for her deal if that eventually makes it up to be voted on. They just don't want to have anyone else in the PM job for now.

10000maniacs

10000maniacs wrote: »

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

Tony Connelly believes the EU is not interested. Their position may have even hardened on the idea once TM's survival odds improved during the day.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1212/1016862-eu-summit-brexit/

10000maniacs

robinph wrote: »

The 200 that voted for her tonight are certainly not all going to be voting for her deal if that eventually makes it up to be voted on. They just don't want to have anyone else in the PM job for now.

Yes, I agree she has a lot more MPs to convince than 127, but one thing is almost certain, those 117 who voted against her in the NCV will vote the same way against the deal in the absence of legally binding concessions from the EU.

bilston

There is no deal that can make it through Parliament. It is impossible.

Britain either leaves with a so called controlled No deal (whatever that means), or it leaves with an uncontrolled no deal, which I assume means grounded flights, empty supermarket shelves, a plummeting pound, patients unable to get their prescriptions, tailbacks at the ports and feck knows what it means for the Irish border, basically the sort of stuff JRM and his ilk seem to actively want.

Or May calls a second referendum or a General Election. Given she has stated she won't lead the Tories into another election, it seems a People's Vote is more likely.

Failing all the above Labour could win a vote of no confidence in the govt and force an election. The outcome of which is anybody's guess.

In short anything could happen. People could take to the streets. Civil Wars have started over less...

Water John

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

10000maniacs

Water John wrote: »

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

I believe they will have to.

Charles Babbage

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine a train. Imagine that for some reason the line splits and a democratic vote is taken amongst the passengers which way to go and they voted for left.
After a short distance it turns out that going left leads to a straight 100 meter plunge off a cliff, but turning right takes them safely to their destination.
Is it unreasonable to hold a second vote which will yield a different outcome based on new information that wasn't available at the first vote?
I think not.
.

In Britain they would have a vote to make the train fly and carry on towards the cliff.

prawnsambo

Laois_Man wrote: »

How can she call off Brexit when it is already enshrined in UK law that they exit the EU on March 28th? Wouldn't it need a new law, passed thru parliament, that supersedes that one?

Parliament can unilaterally withdraw the A50 notice. The ECJ just ruled on that this week. They'd also have to repeal the EU withdrawal act, but they could do that in the same motion.

Laois_Man

prawnsambo wrote: »

Parliament can unilaterally withdraw the A50 notice. The ECJ just ruled on that this week. They'd also have to repeal the EU withdrawal act, but they could do that in the same motion.

Yes PARLIAMENT can repeal the EU Withdrawal Act. That's precisely my point. The OP seemed to suggest that Teresa May can do it of her own volition!

Laois_Man

bilston wrote: »

Given she has stated she won't lead the Tories into another election

That's if you can believe ANYTHING she says!

And by the way - something not emphasized enough in the reporting and which people seemed to have missed. When she said she will not stand in the next election, she specifically referenced the next scheduled general election which is in 2022. Should their be an election in 2019, this promise is invalid.

McGiver

awec wrote:

Ultimately what I think will happen is things will trundle on for another month or so, then the EU and the UK will come up with some superfluous change of wording that allows May and the EU to sell it as a new agreement, but really contains no substantial change, and will allow MPs who have been so outspoken about not voting for the agreement to vote for the new version and save some face, once it finally sinks in that there is no alternative.

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

RobMc59

To the average person in the UK the only result that would make a really big difference would be a no deal brexit-the TM deal although crap wouldn't make any difference-if the UK is stuck in some strange limbo neither in or out the EU things stay the same for Mr average-obviously remaining is the best option but if the idiots ruin it the TM deal is the next best thing imo.

Professor Moriarty

McGiver wrote: »

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

Excellent summation.

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They can be PM but not monarch. Anyway, if Jacob becomes PM it will be time to leave the planet.

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

David109

Thank goodness for PR and Coalitions here.
At least things get thrashed out and (eventually) agreed.

The Lib Dems kept Cameron on the straight and narrow. May needs a long spoon with the DUP.

Professor Moriarty

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

tuxy

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

The deal has been made with the EU. The only thing a new PM could do now is make better preparations for parliament rejecting that deal.

Tell me how

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

Tell me how

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

she clearly is not a leader. it's painful to watch her. that speech after her 'er victory. what was that all about?

tuxy

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

Wheres Me Jumper?

tenacity, doggedness & focus are fine qualities, but can after time easily become obstinacy, pigheadedness & myopia

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

I was responding to the hypothesis that no other politician could possibly have made things any better. The OP wasn't about names. The fact is, when you're in an election, and starting with a 20-point lead, and the leader of the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, it's very clear that a far better performance cannot at all be regarded as implausible, as was implied.

Wheres Me Jumper?

tuxy wrote: »

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

well that's a paradox of sorts, as only a leader would have the self-awareness to realise they are not fit for the role. not being a leader she's not aware of her own limitations.

as for Andrea, i have no idea how she might have fared. how could i?

Peregrinus

Obviously, it has to be speculative; you only get to run history once. We can never know whether, e.g., Andrea Leadsom would have secured a better outcome for the UK than May in fact has secured, though we can have the pleasure of arguing about it endlessly.

It's worth noting, though, that those who argue in favour of dumping May are mostly advancing fantasy arguments in support of the view that an outcome they regard as better could be obtained. Essentially, the arguments are some flavour of "May asked for X and the EU refused, but if Raab/Davis/Rees Mogg/Corbyn asks for it with sufficient true belief, the EU will grant it". That's complete balls. Plus, those advancing such arguments conspicuously ignore the repeated statements from the EU side about what could enable a different deal - viz., drop some red lines.

Essentially, much of the opposition to May is driven by wishful thinking. Say what you like about May - and I do - but she has at least brought home sign-up from the EU to a deal which secures some of what Brexiters want (like an end to freedom of movement), and she has got the EU to climb down and grant things which, initially, they were not prepared to grant (like a UK-wide backstop, and a high degree of market access for goods). The positions advanced by her opponents in the Tory party seem likely to produce worse outcomes than this, not better.

Infini

Deleted User wrote: »

Tony Connelly believes the EU is not interested. Their position may have even hardened on the idea once TM's survival odds improved during the day.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1212/1016862-eu-summit-brexit/

There's an old saying "Don't bother arguing with idiot's they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". The only way they can get this sorted at this stage is to hammer home the 3 choices: Acceptance of the WA, Abandoning this farce and never speaking of it again or Crash and Burn in the fires of your own ignorance and stupidity. No further negotiations because everyone is fed up with this farce.

theguzman

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

Jim2007

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

And you got this from their constitution, the unwritten one, the one they make up as they go along, combined with a bit of interference from the Supreme Court/Law Lords from time to time.

What is the legal basis for you assertion? What case are you referring to? Or is it just your opinion?

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

And you got this from their constitution, the unwritten one, the one they make up as they go along, combined with a bit of interference from the Supreme Court/Law Lords from time to time.

What is the legal basis for you assertion? What case are you referring to? Or is it just your opinion?

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of Her title(which is a bit long winded!)is "defender of the faith".

Ironically, a title first conferred on Henry VIII in 1521 by Pope Leo X.

He lost the title when he was excommunicated in 1538 by Pope Paul III. But Parliament reconferred it in 1544, since when he and all his successors have continued to use it.

zapitastas

theguzman wrote: »

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

gimli2112

zapitastas wrote: »

In what way have the working class been destroyed by the freedom of movement under the single market. Would like to see a peer reviewed study on that

"them lousy foreigners taking our jobs" whether it's true or not that would be the sentiment.
Had it roared at me in the street years ago when I first came to Dublin but I was just a culchie not a non-national

Peregrinus

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

listermint

Peregrinus wrote: »

They haven't been destroyed by freedom of movement. But to the extend that they think or can be led to think that they have, that accounts for their support for Brexit.

The people that believe that guff never worked or wanted to on the first place.


Benefit Street..