Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

20silkcut · 21-10-2019 07:34AM

fash wrote: »

It was a slightly expressed wish of some of the people in a country which doesn't really do democracy based on a silly and vague question, outrageous lies, outside interference and massive illegality. It was even expressly set out as legally non binding. You have no doubts whatsoever as to its legitimacy?

Brexit was an undeliverable fantasy like voting for abolishment of taxation or for everyone to become millionaires.
It’s a fairytale invented by the tabloids.

Every economic model run on brexit shows it to be worse than EU membership.

That fact is only sinking in now with MPs. That the general population is still deluded is frankly a scandal.

To compare it to the abortion referendum in Ireland is ridiculous. That wasn’t a fairytale issue.

Again it all comes back to the utter stupidity of David Cameron.

No other country would dare touch that issue.

There is no benefit to it. No matter what, if your located in Europe, you have to deal with and have a relationship with the EU.
To say otherwise is utter fantasy as is being borne out now with this brexit horror show.
No good has come of it except maybe the entertainment value.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 07:53AM

theological wrote: »

I couldn't agree with this more. The principle of losers consent has been undermined. It is required for democracy to function.

Instead of parliamentarians respectfully deferring to the referendum result and implementing it MPs have been hell bent on undermining it.

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

The reason Corbyn won't call an election or keeps the government and parliament hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which ought to be repealed when Johnson has a majority) is because he will lose very badly in an election to the Tories and the clearer positioned Lib Dems. I reckon Johnson will have a comfortable majority in this scenario.

Can you explain to me why a result that was dripping with illegalities on the side that won should be respected?

Can you also explain to me what result should be implemented in this case when looking at what the campaigns said would happen if the UK voted to leave?

If you can clearly and concisely give answers to those questions, or even just the second one, then I believe all of us on here and remainers in the UK would agree with you. Good luck though.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 08:11AM

To add to my previous tweet, when you are allowed to come up with lies like this, how can anyone seriously not be allowed to challenge it?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186174375390777344?s=20

So being in a customs union where tariffs are set at EU level is a threat to the NHS? How? Why? This person is deciding the future of the UK, a hedge fund manager going on TV and spreading lies to get Brexit.

Joe_ Public · 21-10-2019 08:19AM

They are such deeply duplicitous characters i agree with opposition moves to try whatever they can to stop them. Its impossible to deliver a deal by 31st, ergo we can only be talking about no deal. And Sunak and others trying to argue they took workers rights out of legally binding agreement because they are so important is simply risible. These guys should give it a rest with the lies and the spin.

LeinsterDub · 21-10-2019 08:21AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a great example actually.

Leaving the European Union was the substantive issue in the referendum.

They voted to leave.

Remainers are trying desperately to overturn that result through obstruction.

Stop pretending that that is not what is happening. Everybody knows that is what they are attempting to do.

Brexit was blocked by the hardest of hard core the ERG when May's deal was put to 3 votes. No one can agree a Brexit is the issue

RickBlaine · 21-10-2019 08:25AM

Do we know if Bercow's ruling on another vote will come early today?

VinLieger · 21-10-2019 08:45AM

theological wrote: »

If MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

So they should have another election bringing the count to 2 since they had the referendum and making it the 3rd election fought with Brexit being a core issue but the idea of holding a 2nd referendum is somehow unreasonable? The level of hypocrisy by anyone pushing this farcical argument is just astounding.

The people voted for brexit by the narrowest of margins and then voted for a parliament unable to implement it again by the narrowest of margins, that's a pretty clear message that the people don't know what they really want and should be asked directly again.

Joe_ Public · 21-10-2019 08:53AM

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

prawnsambo · 21-10-2019 08:53AM

Enzokk wrote: »

To add to my previous tweet, when you are allowed to come up with lies like this, how can anyone seriously not be allowed to challenge it?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186174375390777344?s=20

So being in a customs union where tariffs are set at EU level is a threat to the NHS? How? Why? This person is deciding the future of the UK, a hedge fund manager going on TV and spreading lies to get Brexit.

It's the exact opposite in fact. Being in the CU means not being able to do trade deals independently and so there is no mechanism for the NHS or any other state organ to be sold off or opened up to foreign ownership as part of a FTA.

Joe_ Public · 21-10-2019 09:00AM

Dup saying no to CU and 2nd ref amendments. Jim Shannon says they want uk to leave on 31 October. Must think somehow they can get a no deal exit.

farmchoice · 21-10-2019 09:02AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

there is a level of ignorance and functionality in the British Media that is hard to comprehend once you come to realize it.

some charlatan will say something and the rest will parrot it almost without question.
pretty much the entire British media operate on the basis of quoting each others headlines at each other and then debating the headlines. not the issues or the facts just the actual headlines.
so the FT suggest Johnson has the numbers and the debate is now ''well johnson has the numbers so how do we view events in light of this.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:07AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The thing i am struggling with today.

They now say gov has the numbers to pass a mv. So assuming bercow didnt block it, passing it would mean johnson could cancel extension request and that would mean no deal is on table again. Why would mps who voted for letwin allow that? Doesnae make sense to me.

Doesn't matter, they voted on Saturday to pass the WAB first before the vote on the WA, so even if they voted on it and it passed it would only be an indicative vote and not binding. They have to bring the legislation to the house first and the opposition can add amendments to that as they wish and then it has to go to the House of Lords and be debated there for 5 days before it comes back for a final vote. Once it passes all of that and is passed again then the government can bring the deal back for a vote.

Joe_ Public · 21-10-2019 09:08AM

farmchoice wrote: »

there is a level of ignorance and functionality in the British Media that is hard to comprehend once you come to realize it.

some charlatan will say something and the rest will parrot it almost without question.
pretty much the entire British media operate on the basis of quoting each others headlines at each other and then debating the headlines. not the issues or the facts just the actual headlines.
so the FT suggest Johnson has the numbers and the debate is now ''well johnson has the numbers so how do we view events in light of this.

Yeah, i dont know if he has numbers or not, not sure anyone definitively knows. Just trying to grapple with the implications. If they did pass mv, i guess they could then just pass another letwin. I' not sure we're going to get very far this week, just seems to be moving inexorably treacle-like towards an election.

Water John · 21-10-2019 09:09AM

Yes, they all had it down to 1 or 2 either way on Sat. He lost by 16. I know a few incl Letwin will vote for WA.
Now we're to believe on Sunday he has the numbers. Lb are working on the waverers not throwing them out of the Party.

I suspect he'll end up going for a GE in a simple vote with the support of the SNP. He'll prefer that to having a Ref attached to the WA.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:14AM

Some interesting tweets on what is happening,

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186190435322155008?s=20

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186190437826072578?s=20

https://twitter.com/woodstockjag/status/1186192598500872193?s=20

And then what the government wanted to do on Saturday if they won the vote,

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186192148556849153?s=20

So the government were planning to just have the legislation nodded through before they have published it and have it scrutinized? That is not worrying at all, it could have included anything and no scrutiny would have been given to it. This is not right, whether you want to just get on with it or not, you have to make sure you get such a monumental decision right. Just rushing it through with what is regarded as one of the most right wing governments in charge will lead to damage that some leavers would not have ever considered.

Joe_ Public · 21-10-2019 09:15AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Doesn't matter, they voted on Saturday to pass the WAB first before the vote on the WA, so even if they voted on it and it passed it would only be an indicative vote and not binding. They have to bring the legislation to the house first and the opposition can add amendments to that as they wish and then it has to go to the House of Lords and be debated there for 5 days before it comes back for a final vote. Once it passes all of that and is passed again then the government can bring the deal back for a vote.

I dont fully understand that to be honest. Why are referring to it as a meaningful vote if its purely indicative? From what i can gather if he passes it he can then cancel extension request unless they pass another amendment stopping it. Which they probably can anyway so i dont know how far any of this is going to get this week.

marno21 · 21-10-2019 09:18AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's the exact opposite in fact. Being in the CU means not being able to do trade deals independently and so there is no mechanism for the NHS or any other state organ to be sold off or opened up to foreign ownership as part of a FTA.

Hence why this degenerate is on TV peddling the opposite. Straight out of the Trump playbook.

farmchoice · 21-10-2019 09:19AM

Water John wrote: »

Yes, they all had it down to 1 or 2 either way on Sat. He lost by 16. I know a few incl Letwin will vote for WA.
Now we're to believe on Sunday he has the numbers. Lb are working on the waverers not throwing them out of the Party.

I suspect he'll end up going for a GE in a simple vote with the support of the SNP. He'll prefer that to having a Ref attached to the WA.

i believe there were 6 labour rebels up 1 on the previous WA vote, all the talk in the run up to Saturday was 16+ labour rebels.

i have been saying here all week, no way, no hope, it wont be half of that.

for me this is a passing interest, nothing more, i live on the west coast of Ireland i have a full time job and a wife and kids i have little time for this and yet it was blindingly obvious to me that there would be no more than 8 labour rebels.
how did i know this, how did i come to this brilliant insight? i looked back at when this exact same thing had happened 3 times previously in the past 10 months. anyone who tells you oh its completely different this time, different deal, different situation hasn't a clue, not a notion about what has happened in the last 12 months.
in their defence they are just listening to what they are hearing from what on the face of it are reputable journalists commentators.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:21AM

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont fully understand that to be honest. Why are referring to it as a meaningful vote if its purely indicative? From what i can gather if he passes it he can then cancel extension request unless they pass another amendment stopping it. Which they probably can anyway so i dont know how far any of this is going to get this week.

It was supposed to be a "meaningful vote" on Saturday, but the Letwin amendment changed that. So now there is a new procedure to be followed before the same vote can happen. Some were skeptical that Johnson would get the legislation done in time even if he won the vote on Saturday. Now he has to get the legislation done first before his vote.

Parliament is sovereign and can decide what happens, usually a PM has a majority so he guides parliament the way he wants. Now Johnson doesn't so he gets pulled in the direction of the majority.

johnnyskeleton · 21-10-2019 09:28AM

theological wrote: »

I couldn't agree with this more. The principle of losers consent has been undermined. It is required for democracy to function.

I had never heard the phrase "losers consent" before Brexit. But I can see how a theory could run that if you believe in democracy, if you lose a vote which was freely and fairly carries out then you should respect the result.

I dont think this means that if the vote goes against you that you change your entire politicial view e.g. the Republicans won so now Im a Republican. Nor does it stop you criticising how an election was fought - indeed if there were a real doctrine of losers consent, it would be contingent on the decision being valid.

Finally, if losers consent applies to the brexit referendum result, then it should also apply to each and every constituency referendum. UKIP ran in most constituencies and they failed in all of them. Surely under the doctrine of losers consent they should accept that there is no appetite for their form of xenophobic little England no deal brexit?

Instead of parliamentarians respectfully deferring to the referendum result and implementing it MPs have been hell bent on undermining it.

They triggered art 50 and are committed to doing what is right for their individual constituents. That is a fairly respectful way of trying to achieve Brexit without destroying the rest of the country.

f MPs aren't willing to implement this result then the UK needs a new parliament that reflects the people's wish on this issue.

Maybe so. But what happens if the people vote the same group back in, more or less, or even a greater remain majority? Why would that be legitimate but the current parliament is not?

The reason Corbyn won't call an election or keeps the government and parliament hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act (which ought to be repealed when Johnson has a majority) is because he will lose very badly in an election to the Tories and the clearer positioned Lib Dems. I reckon Johnson will have a comfortable majority in this scenario.

There is some truth in this. However, Johnson can call a vote of no confidence in the government and trigger an election. Or he could get an election if he provided the necessary extension guarantee so that the UK doesnt slip out on a no deal while the campaign is being run.

If Johnson was really in charge, he could have an election called today if he wanted. But hes the leader of a minority party and doesnt have a majority in the HoC for anything

looksee · 21-10-2019 09:29AM

GM228 wrote: »

Not sure if this has already been posted or mentioned previously, but well worth reading this thread in relation to alleged electoral offences involving the Vote Leave campaign:-

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1186010245061103618?s=19

https://twitter.com/IanCLucas/status/1185962901368168449?s=19

That is interesting and I was not aware of it, but at a simpler level the referendum argument was based on lies on the leave side - they admitted it the day after the referendum - and the referendum was never a binding referendum anyway. Why have these two facts never been raised by the remain MPs? Why has there not been a legal challenge?

By advertising the referendum as an advisory poll, then treating it as an official and binding referendum, in spite of the shortcomings of the way it was run, large numbers of the electorate were effectively disenfranchised. How has it been allowed to get this far with no challenge to its legality?

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:29AM

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186197513717587969?s=20

And this could be a reason why the government just wanted the WAB nodded through, because it will struggle once it gets scrutinized. It is going to be a interesting week, whatever happens. This could be the week that Brexit dies or where it gets a shot in the arm.

Igotadose · 21-10-2019 09:34AM

Enzokk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186197164902551553?s=20

And this could be a reason why the government just wanted the WAB nodded through, because it will struggle once it gets scrutinized. It is going to be a interesting week, whatever happens. This could be the week that Brexit dies or where it gets a shot in the arm.

Link 404

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:35AM

looksee wrote: »

That is interesting and I was not aware of it, but at a simpler level the referendum argument was based on lies on the leave side - they admitted it the day after the referendum - and the referendum was never a binding referendum anyway. Why have these two facts never been raised by the remain MPs? Why has there not been a legal challenge?

By advertising the referendum as an advisory poll, then treating it as an official and binding referendum, in spite of the shortcomings of the way it was run, large numbers of the electorate were effectively disenfranchised. How has it been allowed to get this far with no challenge to its legality?

Because legally the courts see the referendum as advisory, no matter what the politicians say. They could stop Brexit tomorrow and nobody could take them to court to have them implement the result because it was advisory only.

I know, politicians are treating it as binding but legally it isn't, up is down and black is white. That is another reason why Cameron will go down as the worst PM ever, because he made such a hash of the referendum he allowed the chaos of the last 3 years and May and Johnson to be leaders. He owns it all, and the sickening thing is other than very few voices in his own party and UKIP, nobody was even thinking about the EU.

Enzokk · 21-10-2019 09:36AM

Igotadose wrote: »

Link 404

Try this?

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186199265250594816?s=20

Edited the original to hopefully work as well.

BarryD2 · 21-10-2019 09:41AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Parliament is sovereign and can decide what happens, usually a PM has a majority so he guides parliament the way he wants. Now Johnson doesn't so he gets pulled in the direction of the majority.

And I guess what will happen depends on the mood of said parliament. If there is a mood that the matter has gone on too long and should be resolved now, the MPs will hold their noses and vote all through quickly. If the mood is that only a GE will resolve the matter, then the MPs will continue to vacillate and the EU will extend to allow for same.

If Johnson is as confident of his vote as he says he is, he should have no problem with an extension for a GE as going by his reckoning, the Tories will win handsomely.

LeinsterDub · 21-10-2019 09:42AM

There is something very 1984 about this. Double speak at its finest

https://twitter.com/edmorrish/status/1186199806353403904

trellheim · 21-10-2019 09:42AM

THeres a couple of things in play

One - A deal is not a done deal until parliament ratifies - this is where Theresa May always fell . Currently parliament are refusing to ratify until they see the laws to be passed to make it a reality.

Two - see links above for scary Henry VIII stuff. BUT the real fear is that of amendments - any legislation can have an amendment tabled " this house approves this deal"

AMENDMENT NO 1 ... add after the phrase "this deal" "..and commits to a Customs Union with the European Union" . Amendments are like anything in parliament - anyone can add them... up to the speaker to select which ones get picked - see Oliver Letwin etc ... and they get voted on.

The Tories do NOT have a majority here and can be outvoted especially if the DUP are pissed off . Also remember Rory stewart led the voting for the CU indicative vote ( remember that ? ) and still commands a lot of support.

farmchoice · 21-10-2019 09:45AM

there is an article in the telegraph today (cant link it paywall) claiming that it is lord Pannick (gina miller's barrister) who is the brains behind the letwin amendment.
this makes a lot of sense because letwin never struck me as shape enough to come up something as smart as this.

Igotadose · 21-10-2019 09:48AM

farmchoice wrote: »

there is an article in the telegraph today (cant link it paywall) claiming that it is lord Pannick (gina miller's barrister) who is the brains behind the letwin amendment.
this makes a lot of sense because letwin never struck me as shape enough to come up something as smart as this.

Interesting, but so what? The amendment's been approved. Gina Miller's team has played chess versus seagull checkers played by HMG.

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Comments