Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas wrote: »

I wouldn't be as harsh on her. She was never in the Grieve-Clarke camp and may have been struggling a lot more with the idea of rebelling or quitting the party.

Sorry, just to go back on this. I was harsh on Rudd and a day on, and listening to her on Marr this morning, i'm not sure how far or if at all i'd row back on my verdict. She talks about solidarity with her stricken colleagues this morning, but when they were steadily mobilising against a no deal exit a month ago, as Johnson began to put the most right wing, hard brexity cabinet possible together, she was satisfying herself with the (i believe) delusion that the pm was somehow going to cobble some deal together with the EU. Where did she think or expect this was all going to go? At the absolute very least, and this to be as kind as possible to her, she is merely guilty of grossly poor political judgement.

She also says she had stern talks with the PM last week about the actions he would take against the rebels, but did she still go in to the chamber and vote to keep no deal on the table? As i said, this attack of the guilty conscience has come far too late for me to have any sympathy for her.

Mortelaro wrote: »

That's your opinion
Until you prove that you are a constitutional lawyer or privy to the inner workings of the commission that's all it is as is mine

What part is my opinion exactly?

This is all set out very specifically in the TEU and TFEU.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Depends, the UK needs to use stronger language. The UK wants a deal and keep trade going. If their "friends and partners" in Europe want to put barriers and threaten food and medicine supplies then these are hostile acts.

Again the inherent contradiction: the UK needs to use "stronger language" but somehow it's the EU that's being seen as hostile? And in case you've forgotten, earlier this morning you suggested that "no deal" had to be a credible threat from the UK - but now you're saying that if the UK suffers shortages of food and medicines because of not having a deal, it's a hostile act on the part of the EU?

If the UK wants a deal, there are plenty on offer - the diffferent types are all there on the Barnier Staircase. The UK could pick any one of those models and have it in place by the end of October.Or, you know, they could even opt to continue the "Germany minus" EU membership they've enjoyed for the last 40 years. :rolleyes:

So what's the problem? Perhaps it's not so much a lack of "strong language" but that the UK seems to reverted to communicating only by means of neanderthal grunts.

One point i think worth remembering: Theresa May had at all times the capacity to have her bill passed at any time of her choosing simply by ensuring a mechanism to have it back to the people for the final say. That's how easy it would have been. When the caterwauling started from her backbenches, she could then have pointed out that people like Dominic Cummings and, I think, Rees Mogg had said before that this was a reasonable thing to do. They'd likely be having a referendum around about now or maybe just finished it. Frightfully appalling misjudgement if you ask me, but we are where etc etc

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Some interesting stuff being said by Rudd this morning about whats going on in Downing Street. Basicallly that cabinet is not having discussions about policy, does not know who is running the country.

I missed the interview but basically that can be summarised as the people who were voted into parliamentary seats, and were appointed to cabinet are not.

But this has been clear from the moment Dominic Cummings was appointed SPAD.

The more interesting thing is Rudd has a razor thin majority. Incumbancy might have held onto the seat for the Tories but that has to be in doubt now - she was nearly unseated by a Labour/Green cooperation pact.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There is definitely the question of the EU saying over and over that the WAB cannot be reopened, so its impossible to say for certain that that position would change in the event of a Labour renegotiation. Nevertheless, i think the EU would acknowledge the imperative of having an agreement that can pass through parliament so however it would be done, whether through amendments or add ons, i do believe the bill could be altered to take in elements like CU, environmental regulations etc, while also specifying the need to have it go back to the people, thus guaranteeing the cross party support it needs.

I thought John McDonnell gave a decent performance on Marr this morning. One of the things he was personally strong on was not having no deal as an option in any referendum. I think that's very tricky territory for any government to be dealing with, but if parliament wont countenance it, then i cant see how it could go ahead. Any deal that goes back to the people has simply to be passed by parliament first, otherwise you're just recreating the same recipe for chaos.

I am talking about Labour leading the negotiations in 2017 after the general election. What deal would the EU have given the UK that is fundamentally different than the WA it gave? Remember we are not talking about Labour in coalition with the DUP, we are talking about a Labour party that enjoys a healthy majority in the House of Commons. The EU would then only worry about getting a deal that the negotiators that Labour sent are happy with as you assume they will only follow the instructions of their paymasters.

For the moment I see no different deal, only different language that would be used. The backstop would not be a backstop but just continuation of the customs union and the areas that needs it in NI to ensure no border infrastructure. But it would still be in there to guarantee no border. This would be mitigated by the noises from government that they are not seeking to do their own trade deals so there is very little conflict relating to this. Hence the softer language around it.

I guess it is really simple, there is no deal that is as good as staying in the EU. The deal May got is as good as they were going to get, its just the language that was used that would have changed to describe it. It would have gotten through if whoever that negotiated it had enough of a majority in parliament.

cryptocurrency wrote: »

No parliament can bind its successor, just discussed this morning.

Delay or amendments don't matter after the next election result as the slate is wiped clean. Seeing that anyone with a brain knows the result of the next election then why are we wasting our time dragging it out now.

Remain now in the last frenzied flurry of a punch drunk boxer about to hit the deck.

You seem very dogmatically wedded to the idea that the conservatives will win the next election, but the opposition have the whip hand now and can put off any election to a time that suits them, for example after they successfully force Johnson to delay Brexit. Polls have shown that Conservative support slumps quite drastically if they fail to prevent Brexit being extended again and Labour tops polls when it is assumed that the election takes place in November after brexit is deayed.

Johnson has lost control and has been shown to be way out of his depth. Perhaps the British will support a proven failure like Johnson whos own party is in full revolt against him, but I wont be betting on it.

French foreign minister stating they aren't prepared to extend past 31st October "as things stand".

Bloomberg.

Hard to argue with them in fairness, the whole process is going nowhere. Even this week's developments only postpone to January a no deal exit. If the Tories win a majority at the upcoming election, as the polls indicate, it just brings us back to before last week; crash out brexit.

Enzokk wrote: »

I am talking about Labour leading the negotiations in 2017 after the general election. What deal would the EU have given the UK that is fundamentally different than the WA it gave? Remember we are not talking about Labour in coalition with the DUP, we are talking about a Labour party that enjoys a healthy majority in the House of Commons. The EU would then only worry about getting a deal that the negotiators that Labour sent are happy with as you assume they will only follow the instructions of their paymasters.

For the moment I see no different deal, only different language that would be used. The backstop would not be a backstop but just continuation of the customs union and the areas that needs it in NI to ensure no border infrastructure. But it would still be in there to guarantee no border. This would be mitigated by the noises from government that they are not seeking to do their own trade deals so there is very little conflict relating to this. Hence the softer language around it.

I guess it is really simple, there is no deal that is as good as staying in the EU. The deal May got is as good as they were going to get, its just the language that was used that would have changed to describe it. It would have gotten through if whoever that negotiated it had enough of a majority in parliament.

Sorry, misread your original post. Though, to be honest, i'm not certain the answer would be all that different. Labours brexit policy has long been the butt of jokes and slurs, but if you consider their 2017 manifesto, i think it gives a fair indication of how talks with the EU might have gone. There would have been more clarity around the issues of CU and SM and other key aspects of the relationship, a lot less i believe would have been left to the next round of talks via the pol declaration. They weren't proposing a peoples vote, but there's still every chance they might have been pushed there. Its all what if territory and who knows, maybe would just have led us to the same chaos now, only by a different route.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you know the result, you can make lots of non-crypto cash at paddypower.com:

Conservatives Majority 13/8
Conservatives Minority 5/2
Labour Minority 7/2
Labour Majority 9/1
Cons/Brexit Coalition 12/1
Lab/SNP Coalition 16/1

I wonder if Lab/SNP minority supported by SNP counts in that last bet? 16/1 would look good if so.

looks like Paddypower agrees

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you know the result, you can make lots of non-crypto cash at paddypower.com:

Conservatives Majority 13/8
Conservatives Minority 5/2
Labour Minority 7/2
Labour Majority 9/1
Cons/Brexit Coalition 12/1
Lab/SNP Coalition 16/1

I wonder if Lab/SNP minority supported by SNP counts in that last bet? 16/1 would look good if so.

looks like Paddypower agrees

That 13/8 Is a loss leader

Maybe it would be better for everyone if they just left on the 31st regardless. This needs to be over now one way or another. I was listening to Patrick Honohan (our central bank governor) on the radio a few days ago and he seemed to think a no deal brexit would obviously be bad but it would only result in a recession that was a fraction (one eight I think he said) of what we experienced after 2008. Agri food business hit the hardest obviously. Dublin would barely be effected as it's industry is very US focused and is mostly based on services / tech / financial etc.

Basically his opinion was the brits will be fcuked but we'll be alright after a year or two and the farmers are gonna need some help.