Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio wrote: »

The arrogance of Steve Baker is just enraging. The guy literally thinks he can and should get his way. Tories, Parliament, the UK, the EU should all just bend to him.


The entitled, self righteousness of him is galling.

Arrogant yes, but you have to hand it to them that they have played this whole thing brilliantly from their POV.

From not even having a chance of a ref only 10 years ago to now basically controlling government and determining the final destination of the UK is quite a feat.

They, along with Farage, will go down as some of the top examples of how relatively weak groups can, using the right tactics, completely take control through very targeted, and in truth disingenuous means, to get what they want.

The ERG, with 70 or seats MP's, have more power than all the opposition combined and more power than any ministers without ever having to actually put themselves in the firing line.

So Barker has every right to arrogant. He knows that he has complete control of the PM, cabinet and government and the outcome of Brexit is, unless the rest of the HoC can get its act together, completely in their hands.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So why did UK send May to negotiate instead of all members of parliament?

At minimum there should have been a cross party representative group sent, given its a minority government.

If a combination of Labour & Tory negotiators came back with an identical agreement, including the backstop, would we be in the same boat now? Even with the ERG & DUP voting against it, there would still be more than enough to get it over the line between the remaining Tory & Labour members.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Arrogant yes, but you have to hand it to them that they have played this whole thing brilliantly from their POV.

From not even having a chance of a ref only 10 years ago to now basically controlling government and determining the final destination of the UK is quite a feat.

They, along with Farage, will go down as some of the top examples of how relatively weak groups can, using the right tactics, completely take control through very targeted, and in truth disingenuous means, to get what they want.

The ERG, with 70 or seats MP's, have more power than all the opposition combined and more power than any ministers without ever having to actually put themselves in the firing line.

So Barker has every right to arrogant. He knows that he has complete control of the PM, cabinet and government and the outcome of Brexit is, unless the rest of the HoC can get its act together, completely in their hands.

Weak

To portray these people as plucky upstarts is exactly what they want. These are a minority in number yes. But they are a vastly wealthy bunch , and invasive species that infest all levels of government and the corridors of power. And there is in effect limitless funds available from dark corners mainly eastern money but not all. This cash utilised to bribe, to entice to enthrall others to do the bidding. This whole episode is wealth and power in action.

Nothing more.

spacecoyote wrote: »

At minimum there should have been a cross party representative group sent, given its a minority government.

If a combination of Labour & Tory negotiators came back with an identical agreement, including the backstop, would we be in the same boat now? Even with the ERG & DUP voting against it, there would still be more than enough to get it over the line between the remaining Tory & Labour members.

In the UK constitutional system, foreign affairs is traditionally an executive function, controlled by the government and not by parliament. So e.g. the government appoints ambassadors; it does not need parliamentary approval for appointments (unlike, say, the US, where appointments of ambassadors must be confirmed by the Senate).

This extends to treaty-making. Negotiating and signing treaties is the government's business. This is true whether the govenrment is a majority governments or a minority government. So it would never be appropriate to send a parliamentary delegation to negotiate a treaty; that would be an abdication of the government's constitutional responsibility.

So where does parliament come into treaty-making? In two possible ways:

1. If the government makes a treaty that will require UK law to be changed, they can't ratify that treaty until they have got parliament to agree to the necessary changes. The Withdrawal Agreement is a treaty of this type.

2. Since 2010, it has been a legal requirement that the government should lay any treaty before parliament at least 21 days before they ratify it. (And in fact it was the practice to do this even before it was made a legal requirement.) They do not need parliament to approve the treaty, and in fact parliament often simply ignores it, and the government goes ahead and ratifies. But it does give Parliament an opportunity to object to ratification, if they want to.

What this means is that, although the governmen has the right and responsibility to negotiate and sign treaties without parliamentary involvement, there's a political imperative for it not to do so without being satisfied that Parliament will (a) pass any legislation needed be passed, and (b) not object to ratification.

And, yes, this is a particular issue for a minority government. And May has stuffed this up very, very badly here. But the way to avoid it would not have been to send Labour MPs out to negotiate the treaty; it wold have been to bring Labour into government, or otherwise to make a pact with Labour for its support for the WA.

Which, when you think about it, is what she has to try to do now.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Announcing plans at this stage will provide a political football for nefarious elements.

I agree - we should only make a statement on this when absolutely forced to by British action. Anticipating it will look like permission.

Valhallapt wrote: »

My fear is that on D1ND the Dutch, French, Belgians etc stop Irish goods on entering their ports, how can they prove the goods did not originate in NI?

I believe its been addressed already all goods originating from Ireland will be marked so they do not need to be checked.

The Times are reporting that the UK are backing down on their demands for reopening discussions on the backstop, but heading towards a legal guarantee. However a British spokesperson has said that this is not the case. But the fact that their attorney general is heading to talks soon could be an indicator that they are indeed going down the legal guarantee route.

Britain is prepared to soften its demand that the EU reopen the Brexit withdrawal agreement to solve the Irish backstop issue, The Times has learnt.

Stephen Barclay, the British Brexit secretary, told Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, at talks this week that the British government could accept legal guarantees that fell short of renegotiating the draft withdrawal treaty.

Hurrache wrote: »

The Times are reporting that the UK are backing down on their demands for reopening discussions on the backstop, but heading towards a legal guarantee. However a British spokesperson has said that this is not the case. But the fact that their attorney general is heading to talks soon could be an indicator that they are indeed going down the legal guarantee route.

But there's no way that will get through the HoC, imo. ERG/ DUP will claim (rightly) it's against the "Brady" Amendment.

The UK metropolitan police are still stalling on investigating cases referred to them for criminal investigation by the UK Electoral Commission. The cases are against Liz Bilney of LeaveEU, David Halsallof the official leave campaign Vote Leave and Darren Grimes founder of its youth off-shoot BeLeave.

The Met also took months to collect the data from the EC citing "political sensitivities" eventually collecting it in November.

Now it's revealed that no investigation has been started since.

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/02/14/exclusive-senior-labour-mps-accuse-met-police-of-cover-up-and-unacceptable-delays-in-investigating-brexit-crimes/

“In relation to both referrals, subsequently on 7 September 2018, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) received over 2,400 documents from the Electoral Commission, which are being assessed by the MPS in order to make an informed decision as to whether a criminal investigation is required,” a Scotland Yard spokeswoman said.

Deputy Labour Leader Tom Watson told Byline Times: “I’m sure the Metropolitan Police will want to explain why there is a delay and reassure us that they are not avoiding investigating because of political sensitivities.

“The wrongdoing alleged here is too serious to be swept under the carpet.”

Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats, agreed. He told the Byline Times that he expected the police “to move quickly against the ‘people of interest’ and deal decisively with political corruption”.

Lammy added: “It is extraordinary that the police continue to delay starting a criminal investigation into what the Electoral Commission deemed ‘clear and substantial’ evidence of illegal activity by Vote Leave many months ago.

“Postponing this investigation until after Britain has left the EU may be politically expedient for the Government, but it is clearly against the national interest.

“The independence of law enforcement is vital to uphold the rule of law in our democracy. Unfortunately, it is now being questioned.”

The MP repeated his belief that the 2016 Referendum result should be considered “invalid” if leading Brexiteers are convicted of illegal activity.

The authors of the article asked the Police about 14 politicians they believe are implicated by the evidence (much is public) but Met neither confirmed nor denied etc.

Edit: Timely Bill Browder saying UK laws not enforced with Rgds to Magnitsky/Russian related inquiries

https://twitter.com/i/status/1096151651658784768

VinLieger wrote: »

I do love the ridiculousness of this all where they wont vote for anything she puts forward but at the same time they refuse to remove her from power and vote against motions of no confidence because nobody in the Tories wants to be responsible for the **** show as none of them has any better ideas.

There was a time where MP's would have respect for the PM and show deference. The Chief Whip would have power. Nobody has respect for the PM or the traditional norms of government, its completely broken down. Every right wing idiot thinks his friend is going to PM and he will be bounced from the backbench to a nice ministry in cabinet. They are all deluded. Boris still thinks he has a shot!

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Tesco chairman weighting in with the practical effects of No Deal on supermarkets - spam and tinned peaches could be the new 1970s diet. the BBC Two series Back in Time should do a Brexit special.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1095800209190326274

Reading through the comments on the twitter feed is frightening. How can they be that deluded ? Is it their education system ? Inbuilt empire mentality ? Groupthink manipulated by the tabloids over 30 years ?
One fella saying he’d rather eat Spam and be “free” - I mean what the actual f—k !!🙀 Talk about spirit of Dunkirk, you’d swear the EU was about to invade, the way they’re going on over there. They’ve just never got that they ARE the EU.
I actually think they’re past the point of no return.

Unless everyone else is wrong, of course.

SNIP. Cut out the nonsense.

Russman wrote: »

Reading through the comments on the twitter feed is frightening. How can they be that deluded ? Is it their education system ? Inbuilt empire mentality ? Groupthink manipulated by the tabloids over 30 years ?
One fella saying he’d rather eat Spam and be “free” - I mean what the actual f—k !!�� Talk about spirit of Dunkirk, you’d swear the EU was about to invade, the way they’re going on over there. They’ve just never got that they ARE the EU.
I actually think they’re past the point of no return.

Unless everyone else is wrong, of course.

And the most clueless reply goes to Karen "well if tesco wont supply what i want ill go to sainsbury's".......