nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Rjd2

lawred2 wrote: »

It's not genius though. Appealing to the lowest common denominator has always been easy.

Sure we had one sh!te of our own score near 30% in a popularity vote based on one interview about travellers.

He's not a genius.

He was clever enough to know the power of social media algorithms to manipulate a huge amount of people to deliver a huge political shock.

As I said before his expertise is very much context specific, time will tell if can deliver the same "magic" in his current profession.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Just wondering about a crash out no deal on October 31st ?
Does the Benn Act not ensure that the UK must ask for an extension if a deal is not agreed ?
Even if Boris refuses to do it, and breaks the law, can the courts not compell some member of the government or even a civil servent to do it ?

So in the above scenario, how can there be no deal crash out on October 31st ?

A case is currently before the Scottish courts

https://infacts.org/no-10-bullies-judges-to-turn-blind-eye-if-pm-breaks-law/

'The litigants have asked the Court of Sessions to instruct the Clerk of the Court to sign a letter on behalf of Johnson and send it to the EU if he refuses to do so himself. They also want the Court to declare that the letter is equivalent to one signed by the Prime Minister himself.'

Joe_ Public

The other question is what happens if Johnson comes back with a deal but it then subsequently fails to get through parliament? I havent seen that the Benn act covers that eventuality, but maybe something else does.

lawred2

Rjd2 wrote: »

He was clever enough to know the power of social media algorithms to manipulate a huge amount of people to deliver a huge political shock.

As I said before his expertise is very much context specific, time will tell if can deliver the same "magic" in his current profession.

Yeah

He was smart enough to target middle age white people with incendiary stuff about emigrants.

Genius stuff.

ZX7R

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The other question is what happens if Johnson comes back with a deal but it then subsequently fails to get through parliament? I havent seen that the Benn act covers that eventuality, but maybe something else does.

If he does it would basically Mays deal with some changes, I believe the ex Tory's and rebels would be enough to carry it over

cml387

ZX7R wrote: »

If he does it would basically Mays deal with some changes, I believe the ex Tory's and rebels would be enough to carry it over

Labour and the Lib Dems would vote against. Any foreseeable deal on Ireland would have the DUP vote against. So no, it would be back to last Christmas

Joe_ Public

ZX7R wrote: »

If he does it would basically Mays deal with some changes, I believe the ex Tory's and rebels would be enough to carry it over

The thing is, that's another trap, as in either vote for this deal or it's no deal and Johnson probably figuring on the latter. I can't have any doubt that the opposition has planned for such a scenario, but i havent as yet read any details as to what that plan might be.

bilston

Brendan O'Neill calling for riots now.

Surely he must have broken some sort of law in saying that?

Rjd2

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah

He was smart enough to target middle age white people with incendiary stuff about emigrants.

Genius stuff.

You are downplaying how monumental leave winning was. It's arguably one of the biggest political shocks of the last few decades. It took a lot of skill and expertise to get the result and Cummings played a huge part in it.

You may not like the man, but when you play such a huge role in such a shock you clearly know what you are doing no matter how questionable the methods.

briany

The EU may flat out deny a deal. More accurately, that is to say that a member may actually follow through on veto threats.

What happens then? Up to now, Labour and the Lib Dems would be against no-deal, as a baseline. But if they're presented with the reality of no further extension, then they're pretty much cornered into voting for any deal Johnson brings back, if he decided to bring one back at all. Voting no to this deal would, in effect, make them just as much no-deal parties as the Brexit Party.

ZX7R

cml387 wrote: »

Labour and the Lib Dems would vote against. Any foreseeable deal on Ireland would have the DUP vote against. So no, it would be back to last Christmas

That is probably true, but in the act that was passed saying he has to have a deal right so no crash out,it doesn't state that he has to pass the deal through Parliament.
Boris could in theary get a deal .

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

The EU may flat out deny a deal. More accurately, that is to say that a member may actually follow through on veto threats.

What happens then? Up to now, Labour and the Lib Dems would be against no-deal, as a baseline. But if they're presented with the reality of no further extension, then they're pretty much cornered into voting for any deal Johnson brings back, if he decided to bring one back at all. Voting no to this deal would, in effect, make them just as much no-deal parties as the Brexit Party.

Dont think there's any question as to the extension being granted, if and when asked for. If it's clear that Johnson has found some way of trying to stymie the Benn legislation or that he's simply going to cobble together some form of deal in the hope parliament cant vote for it and they slip through the back door into no deal, then i think the opposition have to foresee that and get the no confidence vote in place. I still feel a lot could rest on that unity gov and that may be what Cummings and Johnson are banking on.

briany

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dont think there's any question as to the extension being granted, if and when asked for. If it's clear that Johnson has found some way of trying to stymie the Benn legislation or that he's simply going to cobble together some form of deal in the hope parliament cant vote for it and they slip through the back door into no deal, then i think the opposition have to foresee that and get the no confidence vote in place. I still feel a lot could rest on that unity gov and that may be what Cummings and Johnson are banking on.

The EU should ask the UK the very valid question of what have they done with the last six months they were just given. Donald Tusk said, "Please do not waste this time.", and that's exactly what the UK proceeded to do. And the EU may ask the UK on what basis should this further extension be granted? What will they do with this time that could produce progress towards a firm decision?

Not that the EU will necessarily ask these things, but it would be well within its rights to.

Joe_ Public

briany wrote: »

The EU should ask the UK the very valid question of what have they done with the last six months they were just given. Donald Tusk said, "Please do not waste this time.", and that's exactly what the UK proceeded to do. And the EU may ask the UK on what basis should this further extension be granted? What will they do with this time that could produce progress towards a firm decision?

Not that the EU will necessarily ask these things, but it would be well within its rights to.

Very true. But one thing struck me when the Benn Act was being put together were the reports that some of them had been in contact with EU officials and i dont know if that's a regular thing but it would lead me to think that the EU are not yet ready to give up on the remain side. Macron and a few of his French colleagues, and maybe one or two others, might make a bit of noise about it, but i'd be fairly confident they'll fall in line without too much hassle.

An Ciarraioch

Barnier replies to a letter from Barclay:

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1177654377303216129

GM228

bilston wrote: »

Brendan O'Neill calling for riots now.

Surely he must have broken some sort of law in saying that?

Some will say he has, some will say he hasn't, what I will say is he wouldn't satisfy the legal test to be prosecuted for the offence of "encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence".

CelticRambler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dont think there's any question as to the extension being granted, if and when asked for. If it's clear that Johnson has found some way of trying to stymie the Benn legislation or that he's simply going to cobble together some form of deal in the hope parliament cant vote for it and they slip through the back door into no deal, then i think the opposition have to foresee that and get the no confidence vote in place. I still feel a lot could rest on that unity gov and that may be what Cummings and Johnson are banking on.

Over the last few weeks, I think we've seen play out the difference between the those who are only interested in their own careers, and those who are real politicians. Yes, I know that common wisdom states that "every" politician is "only" interested in their own career, but for the most part they know that their career is intimately bound up with the best interests of the country, or at least enough of the country to keep them in power. Brexit does not meet that test, and there's a huge amount of political tradition, wileiness and integrity stacked up against a few mavericks.

Those of us not directly involved in the process have always known that the "threat of no-deal" was a ridiculous stance to take in negotiations. Over the next month, what matters most is that the HoC convinces the EU that a majority of MPs have come to their senses and will do whatever it takes to get that nonsensical position off the table. That's step 1, and the only basis on which they need the EU to grant an extension.

Step 2 is to get the best possible deal, but they can argue that that will require a change of government and/or fewer red lines and/or a People's Vote. So the strategy adopted by the Rebel Alliance will surely be to do just enough to get that extension, then an election that Boris loses, and only after that do they need to tackle the problem of who forms a government with who and under whom.

briany

When O'Neill is on Dunphy's podcast, he can say what he likes virtually unopposed and think he's great, but I've only ever seen him struggle against anyone who is halfway competent in debate. The only person I've seen who can really make an eloquent case of no-deal Brexit and not really on the usual emotive soundbites is Mogg.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

The EU should ask the UK Tories the very valid question of what have they done with the last six months they were just given. Donald Tusk said, "Please do not waste this time.", and that's exactly what the UK Tories proceeded to do.

This is the only point the Rebel Alliance needs to make. Everyone in the EP/EuCo knows that this whole débacle is a problem of,within and about the Tory Party, so if there's a reasonable chance that a new non-Tory government in the UK would approach Brexit in a different way, that's sufficient reason to grant an extension.

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier replies to a letter from Barclay:

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1177654377303216129

That's unequivocal

But surely it's just a precursor to shafting Ireland

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Some more court document reading, this time the motion for the Scottish Court of Session Inner House to use its nobile officium power to request the extension:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml1e5etv6utt6fn/Petition.pdf?dl=0

With Johnson stating last night he will not comply with the Benn Act and some movement from the Inner House expected in the coming days expect plenty more popcorn moments.

Further to this just hearing the Inner House has set October 4th as the procedural hearing date with the actual case to take place on the 8th.

A Shropshire Lad

There seems to be quite a bit of histeria, in Irish media in particular, that theres going to be a crash out no deal.
The way I see it thats the least likely scenario of all right now.

Most likely is the UK seeks an extension, and the EU grants it. Highly unlikely EU would deny that.
Less likely some sort of deal is made prior to the deadline and gets through the parliament
Even less likely a change of government in UK before then. A goverment of unity would certainly extend.
Last of all a no deal crash out.

Tippex

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier replies to a letter from Barclay:

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1177654377303216129

That is a quality letter. and to be honest it is one of the best that I have seen.

GM228

Interesting development: Johnson may be investigated for the offence of misconduct in public office, but not as PM, it relates to when he was Mayor of London.

The Greater London Authority has referred him to the Independent Office for Police Conduct in relation to the Jennifer Arcuri claims.

Robert McGrath

lawred2 wrote: »

That's unequivocal

But surely it's just a precursor to shafting Ireland

Why do you say that?

maebee

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Why do you say that?

I think Lawred was speaking with tongue firmly in cheek.

lawred2

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Why do you say that?

EU always blinks at the last minute

LeinsterDub

GM228 wrote: »

Interesting development: Johnson may be investigated for the offence of misconduct in public office, but not as PM, it relates to when he was Mayor of London.

The Greater London Authority has referred him to the Independent Office for Police Conduct in relation to Jennifer Arcuri.

This story has been doing the rounds for about a week. Honestly no one cares. If they don't care about him lying to the queen, illegally suspending parliament, humbugging the memory of a murdered MP and all the other outrages we've seen this week they'll not care about this.

This is tribal now. You're either with us or against us.

GM228

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This story has been doing the rounds for about a week. Honestly no one cares. If they don't care about him lying to the queen, illegally suspending parliament, humbugging the memory of a murdered MP and all the other outrages we've seen this week they'll not care about this.

This is tribal now. You're either with us or against us.

There's a big difference though, the prorogation was unlawful, not illegal - he didn't break the law.

This issue now is an investigation into an illegal act, that he broke the law and committed a criminal offence.

Tell me how

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This story has been doing the rounds for about a week. Honestly no one cares. If they don't care about him lying to the queen, illegally suspending parliament, humbugging the memory of a murdered MP and all the other outrages we've seen this week they'll not care about this.

This is tribal now. You're either with us or against us.

That's it.

If this was 200 years ago, from the moment the Supreme Court (notwithstanding the fact that it didn't exist) delivered it's judgement, Boris supporters would have been mustering the troops to storm parliament and prevent debate until they had exited without a deal.

Brendan O'Neils incitement is a modern day rallying cry to take up arms.