Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Westernyelp · 15-09-2019 6:04pm

CelticRambler wrote:

Because (a) it's not bending over backwards - just inserting a paragraph into the (non-binding ) Policital Declaration; and (b) because it's in the EU's interest to get the WA passed so that (i) everything stays the same on the Island of Ireland; and (ii) the UK - and her MEPs - are formally out of the EU, have no further say in our rule-making, but we continue to enjoy the benefits of their pseudo-membership until the end of the Transition Period.

A political declaration that will be read by Eurosceptic political parties Europe wide as a soft underbelly of the EU ripe for attack. It would be a hugely dangerous precedent to set.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-09-2019 6:15pm

PropJoe10 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what kind of traction the Lib Dems gain with this "Cancel Brexit" policy in the next election, whenever it comes around. They're really putting themselves up as a target but at least they seem to have a concrete message which is more than can be said for Labour.

Anyone know how many seats you could win with 48% of the vote ?

trellheim · 15-09-2019 6:25pm

thoughts :

We know the UKSC will report back on Tuesday. In other news, Cummings is reportedly saying we'll prorogue again “We will prorogue Parliament again if we lose in court” - what @thesundaytimes reports Dominic Cummings told Tory special advisors will happen

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1173140164081868800

if I was in UKSC I would take a dim view of prorogue to avoid a legal obligation .... hmm or is it all politics !

Jim2007 · 15-09-2019 6:33pm

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If the UK gets readmitted it won't get the rebate back, it might be able to win a derogation on the Euro (although it adopting the Euro would be a way of firmly stopping this crisis from happening again) and would almost certainly be allowed to opt out of Schengen as it is really of little benefit for an island state.

There is no such concept. The UK wound need to make an application for membership and will be required to meet all the conditions of membership. It is extremely unlikely that any concession will be granted, because to do so would mean that other potential will members would expect the same exceptions.

Furthermore, would they even meet the basic requirements of having a functioning democratic process. Recent experience would suggest not.

Zubeneschamali · 15-09-2019 6:47pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Anyone know how many seats you could win with 48% of the vote ?

In theory you could will all 650.

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 6:55pm

PropJoe10 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what kind of traction the Lib Dems gain with this "Cancel Brexit" policy in the next election, whenever it comes around. They're really putting themselves up as a target but at least they seem to have a concrete message which is more than can be said for Labour.

People are having to point out to the numerous far right types on Twitter that if the Lib Dems were elected on this manifesto. that would be a democratic decision. They genuinely seem to think "democracy" is whatever they and the Daily Telegraph decide it is.

Kermit.de.frog · 15-09-2019 7:11pm

UK govt is saying great progress is being made in talks.

EU saying there are no actual talks and any ideas on the border are going backward from a deal.

Who to believe?

Hope Juncker sets the record straight on this tomorrow.

An Ciarraioch · 15-09-2019 7:20pm

Strazdas wrote: »

People are having to point out to the numerous far right types on Twitter that if the Lib Dems were elected on this manifesto. that would be a democratic decision. They genuinely seem to think "democracy" is whatever they and the Daily Telegraph decide it is.

As an experiment, I tried to see at what percentage the Lib Dems could win a majority, so entered the following (highly unlikely) figures:

Lib Dems 35%
Con 25%
Lab 23%
Brexit 9%

Even then, the Lib Dems only win 213 seats!

beggars_bush · 15-09-2019 8:10pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

As an experiment, I tried to see at what percentage the Lib Dems could win a majority, so entered the following (highly unlikely) figures:

Lib Dems 35%
Con 25%
Lab 23%
Brexit 9%

Even then, the Lib Dems only win 213 seats!

FPTP just doesn't give any representation to smaller parties
It actually stifles democracy

Joe_ Public · 15-09-2019 8:12pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK govt is saying great progress is being made in talks.

EU saying there are no actual talks and any ideas on the border are going backward from a deal.

Who to believe?

Hope Juncker sets the record straight on this tomorrow.

Piece on the front page of the Financial Times yesterday was a bit more upbeat than that. Lot of "According to No 10 officials....EU diplomats said.....officials in Dublin and Brussels etc etc", but thrust of it was Johnson had given signs he was ready to compromise on backstop and talks between EU and UK negotiating teams last week had been a bit more productive. Whether there's any meat on those few bones, Juncker is definitely the right man to let us know tomorrow for sure!

Capt'n Midnight · 15-09-2019 8:16pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

As an experiment, I tried to see at what percentage the Lib Dems could win a majority, so entered the following (highly unlikely) figures:

Lib Dems 35%
Con 25%
Lab 23%
Brexit 9%

Even then, the Lib Dems only win 213 seats!

Lib Dems don't need to win.

They just need Tories or Labour to need them.

Boris would sell out to get 5 more years.

Joe_ Public · 15-09-2019 8:17pm

trellheim wrote: »

thoughts :

We know the UKSC will report back on Tuesday. In other news, Cummings is reportedly saying we'll prorogue again “We will prorogue Parliament again if we lose in court” - what @thesundaytimes reports Dominic Cummings told Tory special advisors will happen

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1173140164081868800

if I was in UKSC I would take a dim view of prorogue to avoid a legal obligation .... hmm or is it all politics !

The guy just sounds more and more deranged by the day. I assume there must be some kind of coherent long- or mid-term strategy there, but hard to figure out what it might be. Am still thinking along the lines of Johnson agreeing a deal and then hoping it doesn't pass the house, but no idea what such a scenario would entail in practice.

It also seems that he isn't giving much credence to his own boss's chances of agreeing that new deal with the EU, given proroguing parliament a second time would make it impossible for the PM to try to get it through parliament.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-09-2019 8:24pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK govt is saying great progress is being made in talks.

EU saying there are no actual talks and any ideas on the border are going backward from a deal.

Who to believe?

Hope Juncker sets the record straight on this tomorrow.

Who to believe ?

The EU has made a virtue of the difficulty of stopping leaks from so many people, even their negotiating positions are made public.

On the UK side there have been acquisitions of untruths or misleading.
By the Scottish Court of Session. The English and NI courts only ruled that it was an ecumenical matter rather than exonerating Boris & co.

bilston · 15-09-2019 8:37pm

Even if Johnson comes to a deal with the EU over an alternative to the backstop he still needs to get it through Parliament. Would Labour back it? The SNP and Lib Dems would vot against, and the Tory might vote against, as well as those who lost the whip. No guarentees.

Johnson fighting an election having successfully delivered Brexit would probably lead to a big Tory majority. It wouldn't be in Labour's interests to back a deal.

Robert McGrath · 15-09-2019 8:53pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The guy just sounds more and more deranged by the day. I assume there must be some kind of coherent long- or mid-term strategy there, but hard to figure out what it might be. Am still thinking along the lines of Johnson agreeing a deal and then hoping it doesn't pass the house, but no idea what such a scenario would entail in practice.

It also seems that he isn't giving much credence to his own boss's chances of agreeing that new deal with the EU, given proroguing parliament a second time would make it impossible for the PM to try to get it through parliament.

I think Cummings was hired to win an election based on his track record in the referendum. Cummings has shown he knows how to influence a national electorate through technology and targeted marketing. But that’s irrelevant if he cannot influence a majority of parliament. I believe the miscalculation by Johnson and Cummings was their assumption that an election could be triggered quite easily, but parliament has unified in opposition to them and they have no idea how to deal with it. Because neither of them are old fashioned politicians in a real sense - the type that can hammer out deals with individual backbenchers and frontbenchers based on promises and threats.

Edited to add: Cummings could be valuable once they have an election. But I think he’s a liability up until that point because he is a lightning rod for the opposition and his actions have helped galvanise the opposition - and handed them 20 odd Tories!

Joe_ Public · 15-09-2019 9:03pm

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I think Cummings was hired to win an election based on his track record in the referendum. Cummings has shown he knows how to influence a national electorate through technology and targeted marketing. But that’s irrelevant if he cannot influence a majority of parliament. I believe the miscalculation by Johnson and Cummings was their assumption that an election could be triggered quite easily, but parliament has unified in opposition to them and they have no idea how to deal with it. Because neither of them are old fashioned politicians in a real sense - the type that can hammer out deals with individual backbenchers and frontbenchers based on promises and threats.

Edited to add: Cummings could be valuable once they have an election. But I think he’s a liability up until that point because he is a lightning rod for the opposition and his actions have helped galvanise the opposition - and handed them 20 odd Tories!

They clearly underestimated the opposition in my view. They gambled on them not being able to get it together to orchestrate a vonc (remains to be seen) and gambled on them not being able to form a unified front to pass legislation to stop a no deal brexit (and failed). I thought myself Cummings was there simply to ramrod brexit through and he'd take a backseat for the election or even disappear. Either way, identifying him as a potential election campaign mastermind on the basis of winning one referendum vote seems a bit naive to my mind, but it's something they seem clearly capable of it has to be said.

That said, i'm certainly not underestimating him or refusing to rule out the possibility he still has a card or two left up his sleeve. Whatever about the pm, i'd be very sceptical that a WAB with whatever form of backstop would be any way acceptable to Cummings so i'm wondering what other dastardly scheme they might be hatching. I think they're capable of anything at this stage so i'm assuming something well steeped in the dark arts, like we've already seen.

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 9:15pm

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I think Cummings was hired to win an election based on his track record in the referendum. Cummings has shown he knows how to influence a national electorate through technology and targeted marketing. But that’s irrelevant if he cannot influence a majority of parliament. I believe the miscalculation by Johnson and Cummings was their assumption that an election could be triggered quite easily, but parliament has unified in opposition to them and they have no idea how to deal with it. Because neither of them are old fashioned politicians in a real sense - the type that can hammer out deals with individual backbenchers and frontbenchers based on promises and threats.

Edited to add: Cummings could be valuable once they have an election. But I think he’s a liability up until that point because he is a lightning rod for the opposition and his actions have helped galvanise the opposition - and handed them 20 odd Tories!

Apparently, Cummings was just as much of a jerk and just as obnoxious during
the referendum campaign. His reputation as a 'political genius' is hogwash. He doesn't seem to have the first clue how to work alongside people or how to compromise.

Sam Russell · 15-09-2019 9:24pm

If the SC hand down a judgement the BJ lied to the queen (agreeing with the only decision on the facts of the matter, then I would think a motion of NC in him would be likely which would require him to resign as PM.

Even if he survives, the idea that he could go to the queen looking for a second prorogue following such a finding by the SC would see the queen put into a position where she would have to refuse, causing a constitutional crisis. So where then?

Roll on Tuesday.

Headshot · 15-09-2019 9:35pm

If you think about it it's a win win for the SNP.

If the supreme count rejects the Scottish court, another reason for independence.

If they are in favour Bj is gone.

This such a great move by the SNP

GM228 · 15-09-2019 9:38pm

To note the SC will not make a ruling on Tuesday, the case begins then, but will likely last several days.

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 9:42pm

Headshot wrote: »

If you think about it it's a win win for the SNP.

If the supreme count rejects the Scottish court, another reason for independence.

If they are in favour Bj is gone.

This such a great move by the SNP

Indeed, neither outcome is a bad one for the Scots.

I've a funny feeling the SC might go against Johnson. I was reading someone yesterday saying that if the decision is thrown out, it would leave Johnson and Cummings free to attack or go against the judiciary again and again. This would only be the start of something.

The judges simply have to be aware of the wider optics.

GM228 · 15-09-2019 9:49pm

Headshot wrote: »

If you think about it it's a win win for the SNP.

If the supreme count rejects the Scottish court, another reason for independence.

If they are in favour Bj is gone.

This such a great move by the SNP

I'm not sure why that would be another reason for independence?

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 9:53pm

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure why that would be a reason for independence?

A Scottish Supreme Court decision being thrown out by an English court and told they had come to the 'wrong decision'. It would look very bad in the current political climate (England shoving Scotland around and always telling them what to do).

CelticRambler · 15-09-2019 9:54pm

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure why that would be another reason for independence?

Sovereignty, my dear man. Same reason the UK wants out of the EU - so as not to be subject to the decisions of the ECJ.

GM228 · 15-09-2019 9:56pm

Strazdas wrote: »

A Scottish Supreme Court decision being thrown out by an English court and told they had come to the 'wrong decision'. It would look very bad in the current political climate (England shoving Scotland around and always telling them what to do).

The SC is a UK court, not an English court.

Kermit.de.frog · 15-09-2019 9:57pm

Johnson has written in the Telegraph tomorrow but it's paywalled.

Anyone got the gist?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/15/boris-johnson-confident-closing-brexit-deal-heads-key-meeting/

Professor Moriarty · 15-09-2019 10:03pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson has written in the Telegraph tomorrow but it's paywalled.

Anyone got the gist?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/15/boris-johnson-confident-closing-brexit-deal-heads-key-meeting/

Does it matter? Not even Johnson believes what Johnson writes.

GM228 · 15-09-2019 10:05pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sovereignty, my dear man. Same reason the UK wants out of the EU - so as not to be subject to the decisions of the ECJ.

The SC and ECJ are not comparable.

The ECJ deals with EU law when deciding a case.

The SC deals with the law from the jurisdiction of the appeal, in this case Scots Law, the SC is essentially sitting as a Scottish court when hearing a case on appeal from the CoS. The final decision whatever it may be will be considered a decision of a Scottish court, not a UK or English etc court.

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 10:06pm

GM228 wrote: »

The SC is a UK court, not an English court.

Yes, but that it is not how it would be perceived : Scots would just see a court in London giving its verdict.

Strazdas · 15-09-2019 10:08pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Johnson has written in the Telegraph tomorrow but it's paywalled.

Anyone got the gist?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/15/boris-johnson-confident-closing-brexit-deal-heads-key-meeting/

The opening two paragraphs from Johnson are far from encouraging :

Let us be in no doubt as to what has really happened in Parliament in the last couple of weeks. Let there be no ambiguity about the underlying motive. A large number of MPs – though by no means all – are simply trying to crush Brexit. In spite of all that they promised – and voted for – they just want to stop this country from ever leaving the European Union.

This isn’t about trying to block a so-called “no deal” Brexit. Any such claim is utterly disingenuous. It’s about trying to stop Brexit from happening at all – and the opposition parties have emerged in their true anti-democratic colours....

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments