Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Stop moaning ffs

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is a question I am asking. Either they simply don't care and see being PM as the ultimate and it is better to be PM in terrible times than not PM at all, or they simply don't think that No Deal Brexit will be as negative as people are pointing out.

I was listening to the Telegraph Brexit podcast yesterday, and just like the BBC podcast, the lack of any questions around the possible effects of No Deal is just never discussed. It is simply an option, and the Telegraph seem to take the view that it is a no cost option.

Do the MP's feel the same? If so then in their minds there is no 'aftermath'. Just the glory of completing Brexit.

Listen to both podcasts regularly too and also haven’t heard that question asked.
But it isn’t being asked anywhere at all. None involved including media are looking further down the road. It’s going to bite them so hard.

gucci

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is a question I am asking. Either they simply don't care and see being PM as the ultimate and it is better to be PM in terrible times than not PM at all, or they simply don't think that No Deal Brexit will be as negative as people are pointing out.

I was listening to the Telegraph Brexit podcast yesterday, and just like the BBC podcast, the lack of any questions around the possible effects of No Deal is just never discussed. It is simply an option, and the Telegraph seem to take the view that it is a no cost option.

Do the MP's feel the same? If so then in their minds there is no 'aftermath'. Just the glory of completing Brexit.

Pretty much nailed it there, its all about the power. Theresa May been the most recent example. I genuinely believe she had no ultimate agenda only get in power and maintain it as long as she could.

The party are full of the same type of characters clearly, and the fact 10 are running for king pin is a clear indication of why she couldnt get any sway or general concensous for anything. Tory party could be renamed "Me First and the Gimme Gimmes" except that band at least had a clear strategy.

robinph

gucci wrote: »

Pretty much nailed it there, its all about the power. Theresa May been the most recent example. I genuinely believe she had no ultimate agenda only get in power and maintain it as long as she could.

I think she took the job only because she noticed that it was a bloody stupid idea and nobody else wanted the job for that reason and she somehow thought she could manage to find a way out of it. She quickly backed herself into various corners that didn't even exist until she built them up around herself, but was then too incompetent to realise what she was doing or to try to get back out of them.

Whilst it appeared she was desperately trying to cling to power by her, there was also the fact that nobody else really wanted the job. Slightly different position now for whoever comes in as whilst they are still in a completely impossible situation, but they can always just blame May in order to deflect the blame from themselves for trying to do something impossible/ stupid.

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is a question I am asking. Either they simply don't care and see being PM as the ultimate and it is better to be PM in terrible times than not PM at all, or they simply don't think that No Deal Brexit will be as negative as people are pointing out.

I was listening to the Telegraph Brexit podcast yesterday, and just like the BBC podcast, the lack of any questions around the possible effects of No Deal is just never discussed. It is simply an option, and the Telegraph seem to take the view that it is a no cost option.

Do the MP's feel the same? If so then in their minds there is no 'aftermath'. Just the glory of completing Brexit.

I think this is probably the case for a lot of them. Without being too flippant, I suspect there's still a large element of empire mentality going on, whether its their education, insulated lives, or just bombast, I don't know.
But I don't think they see "terrible times" ahead tbh. A lot of these would be in the same general sphere as Farage (albeit not as extreme) and to hear him yesterday, quite calmly saying they should give the EU an ultimatum that "we're leaving at 11pm on 31st October, you can come talk to us before then if you want to get a free trade deal" makes me think its not such a huge step for some Tories to be of a similar view.

What will be interesting in the aftermath in the event of a no-deal will be any public backlash. Will they suck it up and invoke the spirit of Dunkirk or will there be wails of "you never told us we'd have no medicine" ?

Shelga

The leadership contest is next to irrelevant, compared to whether the EU is willing to grant another extension. That’s what this is going to come down to. Again.

Stop moaning ffs

On a slight aside, we know the DUP are immune to irony and lack any self awareness, but Arelenes tweet to ‘Leo’ (not even Irish PM or Taoiseach) is quite something. She mentions ‘compromise’. Seriously?

https://twitter.com/dupleader/status/1133434472781832192?s=21

Zubeneschamali

Shelga wrote: »

The leadership contest is next to irrelevant, compared to whether the EU is willing to grant another extension.

No way will the EU eject a member state with No Deal if they ask to stay, it's bad for both sides.

The conditions the EU dictates may be interesting. A longer one, next time I'd say, certainty for at least a year or two.

FreudianSlippers

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No way will the EU eject a member state with No Deal if they ask to stay, it's bad for both sides.

The conditions the EU dictates may be interesting. A longer one, next time I'd say, certainty for at least a year or two.

I agree with you on the general point you're making, but the EU aren't really "eject[ing]" the UK.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No way will the EU eject a member state with No Deal if they ask to stay, it's bad for both sides.

The conditions the EU dictates may be interesting. A longer one, next time I'd say, certainty for at least a year or two.

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall an EU condition of the current extension was a progress/milestone check in June (or is it July)?

Bit of a bind for the EU if the UK fails that check (...as I expect them to) and, given that hypothetical context, quid of the teeth of any later "conditions" for an additional extension?

I get your core point...but the EU27 of the second half of 2019, post-elections and presidency/Commission appointments, is not going to be the same as the EU27 of the past 3 years.

robinph

Assuming that there is no general election with the Brexit Party getting any seats in parliament before the end of October then I don't see how no deal could possibly happen, regardless of what the new Tory leader says they will do. The rest of parliament still won't support a no deal option.

Leroy42

It will certainly be interesting what the new PM opts to do. The likes of Raab, McVey and others have clearly stated that its No Deal on 31st Oct unless the EU give them what they want.

Farage is pushing hard, and has a sizeable amount of the electorate behind him, for an exit on 31st. Thus it will be very difficult for any PM to sell an extension past 31st October without at least the backstop being reopened.

So the Tories are clearly facing a severe issue from the Brexit Party and in essence Farage has taken a leading role in the decisions on the Tory party. But on the other hand, surely any PM will be told, in no uncertain terms, just what the impact of No Deal will be and will then be faced with the almost impossible choice of whether to further lose support for the Tories of face into the chaos of No Deal.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

Assuming that there is no general election with the Brexit Party getting any seats in parliament before the end of October then I don't see how no deal could possibly happen, regardless of what the new Tory leader says they will do. The rest of parliament still won't support a no deal option.

It's not enough for Parliament not to support no deal in order to avoid it. Parliament has to be willing and able to take action/to compel the executive to take action to avert no-deal, or it wil happen.

This is a serious constraint. So far no deal has been averted through a combiation of a parliament that would not countenance it and a PM would also would not countenance it. A hypothetical new PM, chosen by the party on the basis of a professed willingness to countenance no deal, is a signficant new factor.

sink

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not enough for Parliament not to support no deal in order to avoid it. Parliament has to be willing and able to take action/to compel the executive to take action to avert no-deal, or it wil happen.

This is a serious constraint. So far no deal has been averted through a combiation of a parliament that would not countenance it and a PM would also would not countenance it. A hypothetical new PM, chosen by the party on the basis of a professed willingness to countenance no deal, is a signficant new factor.

One would hope that should any new PM countenance 'no deal' that the more liberal conservative members of parliament put their money where there mouth is a call for a VONC. I imagine Hammond, Grieve et al, would not be able to prop up a government which is diametrically opposed to their own views.

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not enough for Parliament not to support no deal in order to avoid it. Parliament has to be willing and able to take action/to compel the executive to take action to avert no-deal, or it wil happen.

This is a serious constraint. So far no deal has been averted through a combiation of a parliament that would not countenance it and a PM would also would not countenance it. A hypothetical new PM, chosen by the party on the basis of a professed willingness to countenance no deal, is a signficant new factor.

Comments attributed to John Bercow yesterday suggested that he is adamant that Parliament will have the opportunity to prevent a No Deal happening irrespective of who is PM.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall an EU condition of the current extension was a progress/milestone check in June (or is it July)?

Bit of a bind for the EU if the UK fails that check (...as I expect them to) and, given that hypothetical context, quid of the teeth of any later "conditions" for an additional extension?

I get your core point...but the EU27 of the second half of 2019, post-elections and presidency/Commission appointments, is not going to be the same as the EU27 of the past 3 years.

I don't recall if they stipulated a specific month. I think the point might have been that they won't just grant extensions willy nilly simply to allow the Tories to continue their internecine internal squabbling.

They would allow one for either a People's Vote or a general election as the UK would need time to facilitate either and the EU will want to do everything it can do avoid a crashout Brexit. Ideally, Macron won't get in the way of them offering either a very long extension or no extension whatsoever forcing the UK to make a final choice. As an EU migrant myself, I'm not too keen on the risk of them choosing hard Brexit but MP's have shown that they don't want it. They just need to reach consensus on some sort of compromise.

Ultimately, the People's Vote is the only way out of this mess. An ill-judged referendum caused this catastrophe. Another referendum is therefore the only way out given the ambiguity of the Labour party and the fissured Conservatives. The sooner MP's realise this, the better off the UK and the EU will be.

Nody

robinph wrote: »

Assuming that there is no general election with the Brexit Party getting any seats in parliament before the end of October then I don't see how no deal could possibly happen, regardless of what the new Tory leader says they will do. The rest of parliament still won't support a no deal option.

All they need is to copy May which is stall, stall, stall and then refuse to request extension and ignore parliament for the required week or two before the crash out; esp. seeing how the UK parliament is so afraid to actually decide to make a decision for what they want vs. what they don't want.

Peregrinus

Tell me how wrote: »

Comments attributed to John Bercow yesterday suggested that he is adamant that Parliament will have the opportunity to prevent a No Deal happening irrespective of who is PM.

Bercow can ensure that Parliament can exercise its powers. He can't ensure that it will exercise its powers, and he can't give it powers that it doesn't have.

In particular, it's not clear that Parliament has any power either to compel a PM to seek an extension or to compel a PM to withdraw A50 notice. If it passes a resolution calling on him or her to do one of those things, and the PM refuses, it can hold a vote of no confidence, but the outcome of that is not an exension or revocation; its a general election, which takes weeks to play out, and whose outcome is uncertain. Meanwhile the clock doesn't stop running to October 31.

Remember, Parliament has already approved a no-deal Brexit if it occurs simply because the A50 withdrawal period expires without a withdrawal agreement having been ratified. Parliament simply not liking that won't stop it now; Parliament must act, must act in time, and must act effectively. Bercow can facilitate this, but he cannot bring it about himself.

Borderhopper

Has cryptocurrency finished posting? I skipped a few pages of nonsense. It is fascinating though how 1 “controversial” poster drops a few bombs, derails the thread, disappears, then another takes its place

robinph

Nody wrote: »

All they need is to copy May which is stall, stall, stall and then refuse to request extension and ignore parliament for the required week or two before the crash out; esp. seeing how the UK parliament is so afraid to actually decide to make a decision for what they want vs. what they don't want.

The one thing that parliament did actually agree on was that no deal wasn't acceptable.

There would be some hurdles to get over in getting parliament to be able to ask the EU for an extension rather than it being done by the PM, but I don't think the EU would be too worried about that in the event of the PM not following the instruction of their own parliament.

Stop moaning ffs

This is the first I’ve ever heard of this man. And some on twitter saying he’s one to watch. Yet he seems to be under the same delusion as the rest of them.
It’s really looking like they all just want the job and are either uniaware or don’t care about the consequences

https://twitter.com/bbcr4today/status/1133644854985134080?s=21

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ultimately, the People's Vote is the only way out of this mess. An ill-judged referendum caused this catastrophe. Another referendum is therefore the only way out given the ambiguity of the Labour party and the fissured Conservatives. The sooner MP's realise this, the better off the UK and the EU will be.

But what question are you asking on the ballot paper? What options are you providing?

Tell me how

robinph wrote: »

The one thing that parliament did actually agree on was that no deal wasn't acceptable.

There would be some hurdles to get over in getting parliament to be able to ask the EU for an extension rather than it being done by the PM, but I don't think the EU would be too worried about that in the event of the PM not following the instruction of their own parliament.

Surely if parliament sees a PM trying to bring about a No Deal Crash out, it would move to have a vote of No confidence in the government. While the timescale to replace the government could extend beyond the extension expiration date, I wonder could we see a circumstance where the EU would apply an extension, without having been asked by the UK to do so? I could see them doing so if they thought the next PM was going to be more aligned with the reality of the will of the people at that time.

That would be really bizarre and I imagine would make Farage hoarse he would scream so loudly.

robinph

Shelga wrote: »

But what question are you asking on the ballot paper? What options are you providing?

Anything that doesn't involve unicorns.

robinph

Tell me how wrote: »

Surely if parliament sees a PM trying to bring about a No Deal Crash out, it would move to have a vote of No confidence in the government. While the timescale to replace the government could extend beyond the extension expiration date, I wonder could we see a circumstance where the EU would apply an extension, without having been asked by the UK to do so? I could see them doing so if they thought the next PM was going to be more aligned with the reality of the will of the people at that time.

That would be really bizarre and I imagine would make Farage hoarse he would scream so loudly.

That's kind of what I'd expect, new PM delays, forgets to ask an extension, doesn't leave time for parliament to actually get around to ask for an extension or have a vote of no confidence.

I think the EU would just go quiet on the topic of Brexit for a few days, the Farages of this world would be having a party about having left, then whilst he's still hungover the grown ups can have a chat in the background and whilst a vote of no confidence is completed and general election sorted out and new party/ coalition takes power and then the EU comes back as says that they temporarily lost the A50 letter down the back of the sofa and things can carry on as before.

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bercow can ensure that Parliament can exercise its powers. He can't ensure that it will exercise its powers, and he can't give it powers that it doesn't have.

In particular, it's not clear that Parliament has any power either to compel a PM to seek an extension or to compel a PM to withdraw A50 notice. If it passes a resolution calling on him or her to do one of those things, and the PM refuses, it can hold a vote of no confidence, but the outcome of that is not an exension or revocation; its a general election, which takes weeks to play out, and whose outcome is uncertain. Meanwhile the clock doesn't stop running to October 31.

Remember, Parliament has already approved a no-deal Brexit if it occurs simply because the A50 withdrawal period expires without a withdrawal agreement having been ratified. Parliament simply not liking that won't stop it now; Parliament must act, must act in time, and must act effectively. Bercow can facilitate this, but he cannot bring it about himself.

I think that given the majority in Parliament have ruled out a No Deal that some of those will be aware of the potential implications vis a vis the risk of accidentally falling out and will ensure that procedures happen so that it is prevented.

The UK is really in a disastrous place if extremists within parliament can circumvent the majority of the house.

ambro25

Tell me how wrote: »

Surely if parliament sees a PM trying to bring about a No Deal Crash out, it would move to have a vote of No confidence in the government. While the timescale to replace the government could extend beyond the extension expiration date, I wonder could we see a circumstance where the EU would apply an extension, without having been asked by the UK to do so? I could see them doing so if they thought the next PM was going to be more aligned with the reality of the will of the people at that time.

That would be really bizarre and I imagine would make Farage hoarse he would scream so loudly.

Article 50(3) TEU does not require the withdrawing Member State to request the extension first, only to agree to the extension consented by the European Council.

So the burning question would be: who, under UK constitutional Statutes, is empowered to provide that agreement on behalf of the UK?

Stop moaning ffs

ambro25 wrote: »

Article 50(3) TEU does not require the withdrawing Member State to request the extension first, so this can certainly happen.

Can’t see Macron going for that.

devnull

Boris has now been summoned to court over alleged EU referendum misconduct

Believed to be mostly about the claims on the side of the bus and the remarks he made during the campaign.

Although you can quite frankly seeing him use this to boost his campaign rather than it for to be damaged, he'll just campaign on the basis that everyone is out to get him etc.

Zubeneschamali

sink wrote: »

One would hope that should any new PM countenance 'no deal' that the more liberal conservative members of parliament put their money where there mouth is a call for a VONC. I imagine Hammond, Grieve et al, would not be able to prop up a government which is diametrically opposed to their own views.

Maybe, but look at how slowly and painfully the HoC ground through that indicative votes process.

Say the HoC passes a motion instructing the PM to get an extension. Boris nods and smiles and says he will, but then instead of traveling to a last minute Brussels summit to ask for it, he just hides under his desk. The HoC does not have the agility to deal with this.

No official request from the UK, the EU has nothing to consider, No Deal Brexit happens on 31st October this year.

Afterwards the HoC would be hopping mad, and say Boris was in contempt - but that didn't stop May, and the Brexiteers would be having street parties up and down the country - Boris would be a hero (to half the population).

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't recall if they stipulated a specific month. I think the point might have been that they won't just grant extensions willy nilly simply to allow the Tories to continue their internecine internal squabbling.
(...)

You're right, and it was my imperfect recollection: at the time of granting the October extension, the European Council said in the same PR note that it would review progress about the UK/Brexit at its June meeting.

I wrongly amalgamated that with the actual condition that the UK had to either run EU elections by 26 May, or leave on 1st June.

Carry on