Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

mick087

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i remember him waving a mace around.

Yes he did i don't recall what that was about and to be honest im not to familiar with what the mace is all about anyway.

Professor Moriarty

mick087 wrote: »

Reminding all MPs that they work for its citizens.
And following up through his actions.

If your serious and are genuinely interested in Dennis Skinner then are spend some time in Derbyshire talk to its people.

I'm not going to travel to Derbyshire to ask people what they think of Skinner. My opinion is that he was a contrarian funnyman and nothing else. The class clown of parliament.

Peregrinus

mick087 wrote: »

Yes the seat indeed bēġen to lose its safe seat status.
The change came because that area a very pro brexit.

They voted Tory because it promised to keep brexit.
The Labour party was not clear on the issue.

I don't think this is the reason, because (a) Skinner was a well-known lifelong eurosceptic, and (b) as already pointed out, the decline in the Labour vote largely happened before the Brexit referendum. The vox pops at the time of the 2019 election sugegsted that Skinner lost not because Bolsover voters were keen on hard Brexit (which Skinner supported in defiance of the Labour whip) but because they were not keen on Jeremy Corbyn.

mick087

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not going to travel to Derbyshire to ask people what they think of Skinner. My opinion is that he was a contrarian funnyman and nothing else. The class clown of parliament.

Who worked very hard for his constituency

He was touch with ordinary people and stood up for them he was genuine.

fash

mick087 wrote: »

You mean you don't want me to write comments you don't agree with or like?
Yes some would like a society of nodding dogs im sure.

Peoples comments are not stupid there is no need for your arrogance. You seem a knowledgeable educated man, Respect views opinions even out of the box opinions.

We don't all have to agree with what you say or want because you believe its correct.

Please, your comment was completely inane: "there is no such thing as black - even vantablack reflects .00001% of light - at best it should be called dark grey".
Admit your comment was inane and we can move forward.

Leroy42

The vote for Brexit, and subsequent elections, do not absolve the government of its responsibility to protect the country from risk.

Its primary purpose is to protect its citizens, and no point does failing to extend the transition period, set within the WA, come under that remit.

It is an act of self harm, acknowledged by the government itself that it would not be ready.

It seems that they did so on the gamble that the deadline would force the EU to give in. It is a very risky gamble.

So under what basis did the government decide to ignore the option to extend? Even if one takes the result of the GE as a mandate of the WA, within that agreement was the option to extend.

Professor Moriarty

mick087 wrote: »

Who worked very hard for his constituency

He was touch with ordinary people and stood up for them he was genuine.

No problem with most of his political opinions. Apart from ridiculing Tories, his actual effectiveness was very limited. Precisely because he maintained an outsider and contrarian stance in parliament and within the Labour party.

mick087

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this is the reason, because (a) Skinner was a well-known lifelong eurosceptic, and (b) as already pointed out, the decline in the Labour vote largely happened before the Brexit referendum. The vox pops at the time of the 2019 election sugegsted that Skinner lost not because Bolsover voters were keen on hard Brexit (which Skinner supported in defiance of the Labour whip) but because they were not keen on Jeremy Corbyn.

Yes he was very eurosceotic

The old mining towns are all mostly pro brexit which historically was all Labour heartlands.
I agree his seat went because the constituency did it seem want a hard brexit not because Skinner didn't want this but the Labour party did not. Jeremy Corbyn was IMO the cause of Skinner losing his seat.

Peregrinus

mick087 wrote: »

Who worked very hard for his constituency

He was touch with ordinary people and stood up for them he was genuine.

I'd like to think so. But the very fact that he sat for what was virtually a rotten borough for so many years meant that he didn't need to pay much attention to his constituents or their concerns. And, if you think that Labour lost Bolsover because of Brexit, this argues strongly against Skinner having had much contact with the people of Bolsover. If he had, the fact that he was strongly pro-Brexit would have been better known to them, and would have carried more weight with them. But, as pointed out already, the vox pops indicate that people in Bolsover voted on the basis of their feelings about Jeremy Corbyn, not their feelings about Dennis Skinner. That doesn't suggest an MP in touch with, or valued by, his constituents. It more suggests an MP who inherited a safe seat but, by persistent neglect of his constituents, managed to turn it into a marginal, and eventually lost it.

Nationally, he was mostly noted for disruptive behaviour in the House of Commons and for his cheeky anti-royalist comments during the Queen's Speech. These, I agree, are endearing qualities, but it's doubtful that they did a great deal to benefit the people of Bolsover or advance their concerns.

mick087

fash wrote: »

Please, your comment was completely inane: "there is no such thing as black - even vantablack reflects .00001% of light - at best it should be called dark grey".
Admit your comment was inane and we can move forward.

First they call you stupid then they call you insane, then they lock you up then you win and then you carn't find anyone at the top who's idea it wasn't to start with.


Tony Benn

fash

theological wrote: »

I don't know what you'd like me to say to your obviously extreme position in bold. But not acting on the referendum result and not respecting the result of the election would be more dictatorial.

Would it? The UK courts already confirmed that if the referendum were actually democratic (i.e. binding on the state, the illegality involved in its running would mean it could not be "respected". Who are you to say otherwise - that the British should sit back and accept the illegalities?

A referendum once in a generation reflecting significantly different circumstances is different to one in three years because you don't like the result. That is more in Erdogan's playbook and it's more similar to his Istanbul re-do strop.

Please- aside from the illegality, the vote was "do you want vanilla ice-cream or some other ice-cream?" "Some other ice-cream" may have (illegally) won by 52% but only by being every other conceivable form. Even then 65% of those who voted for "some other ice-cream", intended to get "vanilla flavoured ice-cream with bits" - yet instead they are now being given "dog vomit with extra chunks ice-cream".
While it is true that the people (barely and based on illegality" voted for "some other ice-cream" and it is indeed true that "dog vomit with chunks ice-cream" is indeed not vanilla and therefore "some other ice-cream" - let's not in any way pretend that dog vomit with extra chunks is what the people want - or that "dog vomit with extra chunks" would win in a vote against "vanilla" or that "dog vomit with chunks" is what the people thought they were voting for when they voted for "some other ice-cream" - or that some other ice-cream" would have won if people were informed in advance that their choice was between vanilla and "dog vomit with chunks".
Let's also not forget the various promises that after a exact form of brexit was determined the people would of course be given the opportunity to compare it to the existing. Rather strange that those promises have melted away.

By the way the AKP got absolutely thrashed in the redo.

Indeed - it rather shows that only those engaging in underhand means to barely win a vote need to fear a second.

mick087

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd like to think so. But the very fact that he sat for what was virtually a rotten borough for so many years meant that he didn't need to pay much attention to his constituents or their concerns. And, if you think that Labour lost Bolsover because of Brexit, this argues strongly against Skinner having had much contact with the people of Bolsover. If he had, the fact that he was strongly pro-Brexit would have been better known to them, and would have carried more weight with them. But, as pointed out already, the vox pops indicate that people in Bolsover voted on the basis of their feelings about Jeremy Corbyn, not their feelings about Dennis Skinner. That doesn't suggest an MP in touch with, or valued by, his constituents. It more suggests an MP who inherited a safe seat but, by persistent neglect of his constituents, managed to turn it into a marginal, and eventually lost it.

Nationally, he was mostly noted for disruptive behaviour in the House of Commons and for his cheeky anti-royalist comments during the Queen's Speech. These, I agree, are endearing qualities, but it's doubtful that they did a great deal to benefit the people of Bolsover or advance their concerns.

I wouldn't say he didn't pay attention to his constituents and their concerns genuinely think he did.
I once saw him in an interview about Labour and Corbyn and brexit.
He said his normal leave the EU stuff but was asked about what Corbyn's view on brexit was. He said he was surprised and that he may be doing it for what he feels is the good of the party but didn't believe Corbyn believed in the EU in his heart.

Yes they did vote because of their feeling towards Corbyn.

Corbyn IMO has lost the Labour party the working class vote.
This will not be easy to get back.

Yes, some of his antics were funny.

CelticRambler

These last few pages make for a quite a nice summary of the Brexit process - and validate the thread title. So many supporters of the "winning" Leave side still fighting the referendum, and digging into the deepest recesses of dysfunctional British politics to justify their position. Meanwhile, the Brexit Bus trundles driverless toward the T-junction ahead - Britain neither pissing off, nor getting on with it.

Peregrinus

mick087 wrote: »

Corbyn IMO has lost the Labour party the working class vote.

Well, a signficant chunk of it, anyway.

mick087 wrote: »

This will not be easy to get back.

Time will tell. In the first year after the 2019 election we've had the completely unforeseen CV19 pandemic and the completely unforeseen disastrous ineptitude of the Tory government in responding to it. How are working class voters going to process that and how will it affect their perception of the Tories? We don't know yet.

And, in the year after that, we are going to have the consequences of a hard Brexit - it remains to be seen just how hard, but it will certainly be hard. Those consequences are going to surprise at least one, and possibly several, of the groups who have offered various confident predictions about how hard Brexit would play out. How will working class voters be affected by hard Brexit, and how will that affect their perception of the Tories? We don't know that either.

And that's in just the first two years of what should be a five-year Tory term. What will happen in the following three years? God knows.

But we do know that in 2024 the Tories will be coming to the end of their fourth successive term in office, needing to win a fifth. No political party in the entire history of the UK has ever won five successive terms in office, so I think that's quite a challenge. And the present government hasn't exactly covered itself with glory in any of the challenges that it has faced since taking office or burnished its reputation for competence, effectiveness or even common sense.
So, as of now, do you think it looks like the kind of outfit that could pull that off? No, me neither.

Plus, by then, it will be 2024. Corbyn will have beeng gone for years. I seriously doubt that in 2024 working class voters will be more exercised by Corbyn's inability to confront antisemitism in 2018 than they are by the Tories' inablity to manage a pandemic in 2020 or to negotiate the easiest trade deal in the entire history of ever by 2021. Unless the Tories have an improbable amount of good luck over the next four years, I wouldn't see them as a shoe-in in 2024.

theological

fash wrote: »

Would it? The UK courts already confirmed that if the referendum were actually democratic (i.e. binding on the state, the illegality involved in its running would mean it could not be "respected". Who are you to say otherwise - that the British should sit back and accept the illegalities?

Decided to chop most of the whinging out.

The British people have voted in subsequent elections for parties who campaigned to honour the referendum result.

The very definition of a dictatorship is when people who declare themselves to be enlightened go against the will of the people.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Would it? The UK courts already confirmed that if the referendum were actually democratic (i.e. binding on the state, the illegality involved in its running would mean it could not be "respected".

Actually, no, the UK courts haven't said that.

theological wrote: »

The very definition of a dictatorship is when people who declare themselves to be enlightened go against the will of the people.

Actually, no, that's not really the definition of a dictatorship.

Discussion might be more productive if we dialled it back a little. Just sayin'.

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no, the UK courts haven't said that.
'.

I appreciate the correction- thank you.

Leroy42

So far from moving closer to an agreement, even though Johnson sold the entire election on the Oven Ready WA, the Uk are looking to renegotiate parts of it - this particular part dealing with

The British proposal on protected status for food and drink was included in a draft free-trade agreement handed to Barnier by his opposite number, David Frost, last week, according to two EU sources[/QUOTE

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/28/barnier-flabbergasted-uk-attempt-reopen-brexit-specialty-food-drink-debate

Unfortunately, Johnson has already signed the deal and the great British Public gave his a huge endorsement by 80 seat majority so it would appear completely undemocratic for the government to unilaterally look to renegotated without going back to the people.

Seth Brundle

Leroy42 wrote: »

So far from moving closer to an agreement, even though Johnson sold the entire election on the Oven Ready WA, the Uk are looking to renegotiate parts of it - this particular part dealing with

I guess they spent as much time reading the WA as they did reading the Belfast Agreement!

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I guess they spent as much time reading the WA as they did reading the Belfast Agreement!

But how the hell are the EU supposed to negotiate with a UK can continually go back, not only on its word, but on its international commitment?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how the hell are the EU supposed to negotiate with a UK can continually go back, not only on its word, but on its international commitment?

They're not. They've had to waste this time holding the UK to commitments it made in the WA.

Quantum Erasure

What was that you were saying....


https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1302697577171820544

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1302714045410217985

joeguevara

My memory of the NI protocol is that is now simply an appendix in the withdrawal agreement with an aim to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now without knowing what is proposed, I presume it’s removing that agreement therefore putting a hard border back on the table. Firstly what a pr1ck (with all due respect to any posters who are from Great Britain) to openly negotiate this with Varadkar which enabled an organised withdrawal to now simply say, nah I lied is a flagrant disregard of international relations, even worse when it’s between two countries which until very recently endured a very fractured relationship.

So if a hard border is on his table what does it mean. Firstly as far as I remember he was always thinking of not doing anything but then saying Ireland has to put a border in to protect the EU borders. That didn’t work because according to the legal opinion (which U.K. ultimately agreed as correct) if by default or omission making Ireland put it in amounted to the same as if U.K. did it.

Now if there is a hard border, that doesn’t automatically mean that there is a breach of the GFA as there is no mention of a hard border per se it is interpreted as falling under the security installations text. Notwithstanding that there are separate agreements between Ireland and the U.K. which are international agreemrents which provide for no return of a hard border,

So if Boris continues down this line, it will lead to a breach of an international peace agreement which the UN is bound by international law to act and protect the aggrieved. There are three ways to do this....essentially mediation which seems pointless as it waS an explicit act, economic and trade sanctions by the UN, EU has to do the same and as required in iternwtional law US do too.

So, let’s wait and see how this plays out, I’m looking forward to see how pro Johnson and pro exit supporters will argue that acting in their best interests is not a breach of anything and German car sales will trump international law and order.

Peregrinus

joeguevara wrote: »

My memory of the NI protocol is that is now simply an appendix in the withdrawal agreement with an aim to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now without knowing what is proposed, I presume it’s removing that agreement therefore putting a hard border back on the table . . .

Nothing so drastic.

Based purely on newspaper reports of what will be in a Bill that the government will introduce into parliament later this week, there'll be a clause in the Bill that is potentially inconsistent with just one provision in the (very lengthy) NI protocol. There's no suggestion that the UK propopses to formally repudiate the Withdrawal Agreement or the NI protocol; just that in one particular respect it may not comply with it.

If push came to shove, it would be up to the EU to decide how to respond to non-compliance, but I doubt that the very first response would be to erect a hard border. Because the UK would in general still accept that it was bound by the WA (including the dispute resolution procedures) I expect that the EU's first steop would be to invoke those dispute resolution procedures, complaining that the UK was in breach of this particular clause of the NI protocol to the WA. The UK would (under the terms of the WA) be bound to accept and comply with the outcome of that dispute resolution procedure, and would be exposed to various sanctions from the EU if it refused to.

That's not to say that the whole thing couldn't escalate to a point where border controls became necessary. But we as of yet we are very, very far from that point.

joeguevara

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nothing so drastic.

Based purely on newspaper reports of what will be in a Bill that the government will introduce into parliament later this week, there'll be a clause in the Bill that is potentially inconsistent with just one provision in the (very lengthy) NI protocol. There's no suggestion that the UK propopses to formally repudiate the Withdrawal Agreement or the NI protocol; just that in one particular respect it may not comply with it.

If push came to shove, it would be up to the EU to decide how to respond to non-compliance, but I doubt that the very first response would be to erect a hard border. Because the UK would in general still accept that it was bound by the WA (including the dispute resolution procedures) I expect that the EU's first steop would be to invoke those dispute resolution procedures, complaining that the UK was in breach of this particular clause of the NI protocol to the WA. The UK would (under the terms of the WA) be bound to accept and comply with the outcome of that dispute resolution procedure, and would be exposed to various sanctions from the EU if it refused to.

That's not to say that the whole thing couldn't escalate to a point where border controls became necessary. But we as of yet we are very, very far from that point.

I was going off the tone of the tweets and the word override and illegal as the basis of the above. It will be up to what is included as to the extent of the reversal. However one thing we can’t dismiss is that the entire withdrawal agreement hinged on this appendix and it took a last minute meeting between Leo and BJ where they finally both agreed it as it is. In essence it could be seen as one out all out as it’s a blatant disregard of the process and could set off the EU to lose faith in anything agreed if this is what is done.

Peregrinus

joeguevara wrote: »

I was going off the tone of the tweets and the word override and illegal as the basis of the above. It will be up to what is included as to the extent of the reversal. However one thing we can’t dismiss is that the entire withdrawal agreement hinged on this appendix and it took a last minute meeting between Leo and BJ where they finally both agreed it as it is. In essence it could be seen as one out all out as it’s a blatant disregard of the process and could set off the EU to lose faith in anything agreed if this is what is done.

Oh, I agree. I think this does threaten the WA - not with immediate repudiation or collapse but with the threat of steady chipping away and eventual failure. It's a serious threat, but it's not something that would happen overnight.

It may be that the UK would be engaging in a minor, specific breach as a way of daring the EU to retaliate, so that they could then blame the EU for what might ensue afterwards. I think the EU will need to be very level-headed in its response.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I agree. I think this does threaten the WA - not with immediate repudiation or collapse but with the threat of steady chipping away and eventual failure. It's a serious threat, but it's not something that would happen overnight.

It may be that the UK would be engaging in a minor, specific breach as a way of daring the EU to retaliate, so that they could then blame the EU for what might ensue afterwards. I think the EU will need to be very level-headed in its response.

I pointed out last week on the brexit thread that there is increasing building activity in the port here in Birkenhead and increased naval refitting/maintenance in the local shipbuilders(Cammell Lairds)There are lorryparks springing up all over the place with very little or no prior notice.
I said it then and I maintain the UK government is gearing up for no deal and is preparing for possible confrontation ,probably over fishing.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

I pointed out last week on the brexit thread that there is increasing building activity in the port here in Birkenhead and increased naval refitting/maintenance in the local shipbuilders(Cammell Lairds)There are lorryparks springing up all over the place with very little or no prior notice.
I said it then and I maintain the UK government is gearing up for no deal and is preparing for possible confrontation ,probably over fishing.

It's been preparing quite badly given that the border preparations regarding NI and GB seem to be unlikely to be ready by January.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I pointed out last week on the brexit thread that there is increasing building activity in the port here in Birkenhead and increased naval refitting/maintenance in the local shipbuilders(Cammell Lairds)There are lorryparks springing up all over the place with very little or no prior notice.
I said it then and I maintain the UK government is gearing up for no deal and is preparing for possible confrontation ,probably over fishing.

Given the very thin trade deal the UK government is seeking they are going to require the facilities you have noticed with our without a trade deal. Even with a trade deal, there will be hugely increased need for processing, paperwork, etc in connection with the UK's external trade. As the Department of Trade euphemistically puts it, they are "growing the UK's customs sector". They need offices for all those customs officers and customs clearance agents, and inspection facilities for trucks, and parking areas for trucks waiting for inspection and clearance, because they do not want, and are not seeking, an FTA which will avoid this.

So the fact that they are preparing these facilities doesn't tell us very much, one way of the other, about whether they have decided not to pursue a trade deal after all.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's been preparing quite badly given that the border preparations regarding NI and GB seem to be unlikely to be ready by January.

The UK's reluctance to engage in genuine brexit negotiations has been pathetic to date.All I'm pointing out is preparation for no deal appears to be ramping up,the news that the UK government plans to change the law to bypass the WA has possibly been the strategy from the beginning if they don't get their own way.