Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

Justine Greening is a disgrace, if she didn't want go support the manifesto she should have stepped down. 

 

Why should we listen to calls for a second referendum from people who by definition don't accept the results of referendums in the first place? 

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I would be interested to see this as I cant see how it is to be honest.

 

I live in Stoke, 70% of people here voted Leave, this is one of the safest Labour seats in the country. I can see their reasons for voting Leave, I cant really see their reason other than tribal for voting Labour. 

 

I think this was it, Foxin:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

[Guest MattP]

This really is one of the biggest co-ordinated political conspiracies I've ever seen.

 

They are going to try and force a second/third/fourth referendum whatever happens until they get the answer they want.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/07/14/airbus-fury-loss-raf-deal-brexit-warning

 

Airbus bosses are furious after the Government spurred them to publish a dire forecast of the impact of Brexit before handing a prize £2bn RAF contract to US rival Boeing without a competition.

The Telegraph has learnt that last month’s bombshell warning from Airbus that it could be forced to leave the UK came after discussions with senior Remainer ministers preparing for the Chequers summit.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Justine Greening is a disgrace, if she didn't want go support the manifesto she should have stepped down. 

 

Why should we listen to calls for a second referendum from people who by definition don't accept the results of referendums* in the first place? 

3

 

*referenda

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think this was it, Foxin:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/29/labour-mps-fear-brexit-voters-unfounded-study

Let's not pretend this is an independent study though, it's by a group called Best for Britain which is led by Gina Miller.

 

The data is clearly dodgy as it uses numbers from a referendum with a higher turnout against lower ones from an election to try and prove the point.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Let's not pretend this is an independent study though, it's by a group called Best for Britain which is led by Gina Miller.

 

The data is clearly dodgy as it uses numbers from a referendum with a higher turnout against lower ones from an election to try and prove the point.

 

Maybe.

 

It tallies with Foxin's observation though:

 

28 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think he wanted to try and see the demise of UKIP, which obviously with this promise he did for a period.

 

We probably should have had a referendum on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty as that was really what has caused all of this and the rise of UKIP anyway.

 

It is no surprise to see UKIP % rising in the polls again due to the apparent 'soft' Brexit being proposed. The only thing I am baffled on is how Labour vote is holding up as they are absolutely trashing the wishes of their voter base in the North.

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

Maybe.

 

It tallies with Foxin's observation though

To be honest, at this moment in time, you could argue Labour policy is more respectful of the referendum result than the Conservative one.

 

Will have to wait until we see the full deal but the opposition don't explicitly commit us to common regulation on food and farm produce, we all know "a customs union" is probably bollocks but at least they are still supposedly committed to independent trade. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Justine Greening is a disgrace, if she didn't want go support the manifesto she should have stepped down. 

 

Why should we listen to calls for a second referendum from people who by definition don't accept the results of referendums in the first place? 

It's more a question of how do we get an end result the majority can get behind.

 

As it stands if we don't leave Brexiters will be up in arms, UKIP will rise again (despite being all out racist now) and we'll never escape the next question.

 

If it's a soft Brexit of the type may is espousing it's starting to look like nobody will be happy.

 

If it's a hard Brexit the government have got nothing planned so it might well be catastrophic in terms of having no plans for tariffs, ports, movement, air travel, euratom etc etc etc. Tbh this is the biggest disgrace of all the government's disgraces - it told leavers no deal was better than a bad deal being their hopes up but has singularly failed to properly mitigate no deal happening. It's the single biggest failure of government of all time if it goes wrong and imo if a no deal did turn into a catastrophe then politicians will need to be looked at in terms of criminal prosecutions.

 

We may be on different sides of the debate but whatever the outcome we all have to live with it. I don't honestly know which way the vote would go in a three choice vote but it may be the only way to get a proper mandate for whatever is delivered. 

 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

To be honest, at this moment in time, you could argue Labour policy is more respectful of the referendum result than the Conservative one.

 

Will have to wait until we see the full deal but the opposition don't explicitly commit us to common regulation on food and farm produce, we all know "a customs union" is probably bollocks but at least they are still supposedly committed to independent trade. 

 

I'm not sure Labour has a policy, tbh.

 

I think they are playing a waiting game, happily watching the Tories implode.

[Beechey]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

To be honest, at this moment in time, you could argue Labour policy is more respectful of the referendum result than the Conservative one.

 

Will have to wait until we see the full deal but the opposition don't explicitly commit us to common regulation on food and farm produce, we all know "a customs union" is probably bollocks but at least they are still supposedly committed to independent trade. 

Labour want "full access to the Single Market" though, which means accepting EU legislation as well, and also accepting free movement of labour. Labour try and state they'll remove free movement but still maintain EU SM access, but that's pie in the sky stuff. They also want a new customs union, which means common external tariffs and no independent UK trade agreements. They're a slightly softer version of the Conservatives, but still an absolutely abysmal halfway-house.

Edited 16 July 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's more a question of how do we get an end result the majority can get behind.

 

As it stands if we don't leave Brexiters will be up in arms, UKIP will rise again (despite being all out racist now) and we'll never escape the next question.

 

If it's a soft Brexit of the type may is espousing it's starting to look like nobody will be happy.

 

If it's a hard Brexit the government have got nothing planned so it might well be catastrophic in terms of having no plans for tariffs, ports, movement, air travel, euratom etc etc etc. Tbh this is the biggest disgrace of all the government's disgraces - it told leavers no deal was better than a bad deal being their hopes up but has singularly failed to properly mitigate no deal happening. It's the single biggest failure of government of all time if it goes wrong and imo if a no deal did turn into a catastrophe then politicians will need to be looked at in terms of criminal prosecutions.

 

We may be on different sides of the debate but whatever the outcome we all have to live with it. I don't honestly know which way the vote would go in a three choice vote but it may be the only way to get a proper mandate for whatever is delivered. 

 

In a three way vote that side of the argument split into two would lose. That's why you can't have a 3-way referendum - see Scotland and the potential devomax option. 

 

Another vote doesn't change the fact of the parlimentary arithmetic and a lot of these people still won't accept the result, if they didn't the first time why would they a second?

 

If they want to do that table an amendment to make it a constituency based vote.

 

1 minute ago, Buce said:

I'm not sure Labour has a policy, tbh.

 

I think they are playing a waiting game, happily watching the Tories implode.

Which is the smart thing to do in all honesty. 

 

Could backfire bigtime though if they do somehow end up in charge of this.

[Guest]

 

1 minute ago, MattP said:

In a three way vote that side of the argument split into two would lose. That's why you can't have a 3-way referendum - see Scotland and the potential devomax option. 

 

Another vote doesn't change the fact of the parlimentary arithmetic and a lot of these people still won't accept the result, if they didn't the first time why would they a second?

 

If they want to do that table an amendment to make it a constituency based vote.

 

Which is the smart thing to do in all honesty. 

 

Could backfire bigtime though if they do somehow end up in charge of this.

Tbf it's why I've always preferred two questions as it would feel fairer to leavers:

 

Q1- accept the deal or not accept the deal?

 

If don't accept wins then

 

Q2- leave with no deal or remain?

 

I think we both know that however you phrase the question a no deal Brexit is unlikely to win. If a no deal Brexit had been the option in the last referendum we wouldn't be leaving. Denying this is where Brexiteers are dishonest.

[Beechey]

Another resignation

 

 

[Beechey]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

Tbf it's why I've always preferred two questions as it would feel fairer to leavers:

 

Q1- accept the deal or not accept the deal?

 

If don't accept wins then

 

Q2- leave with no deal or remain?

 

I think we both know that however you phrase the question a no deal Brexit is unlikely to win. If a no deal Brexit had been the option in the last referendum we wouldn't be leaving. Denying this is where Brexiteers are dishonest.

Part of the problem is that any answer for 'remain inside the EU' could only work in the fashion that we leave the EU then immediately rejoin. There's no mechanism for revoking Article 50 and the text is clear, once 2 years is up, you are out. Legally and irreversibly, the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. A question we must ask therefore is at what price would the EU extract for us to rejoin?

[Countryfox]

Was going to post this somewhere else but thought ..  no ! ...  this needs to be seen so should be on a very popular thread for greater exposure ...   so here it is !!

 

And if this helps someone become a millionaire I expect free beer for a week ! ...    

 

 

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Part of the problem is that any answer for 'remain inside the EU' could only work in the fashion that we leave the EU then immediately rejoin. There's no mechanism for revoking Article 50 and the text is clear, once 2 years is up, you are out. Legally and irreversibly, the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. A question we must ask therefore is at what price would the EU extract for us to rejoin?

 

 

All the legal advice says differently.

[Beechey]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

All the legal advice says differently.

Such as what? Because the actual text could not be clearer. So unless there's another Article in Lisbon somewhere I don't see how. If you refer to Tusk or the author of the Article stating that, it means nothing. Legally inside Lisbon, there is nothing that states A50 can ever be reversed, in fact it states the opposite.

Edited 16 July 2018 by Beechey

[Buce]

Just now, Beechey said:

Such as what? Because the actual text could not be clearer. So unless there's another Article in Lisbon somewhere I don't see how.

 

European Council President Donald Tusk has said that he believes Article 50 can be reversed.

When asked if the UK could unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification during the next two years, he said, "Formally, legally, yes."

Lord Kerr - the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 - agreed.

"You can change your mind while the process is going on," he said.

He acknowledged that this might annoy the rest of the EU, and be seen as a huge waste of time.

"They might try to extract a political price," Lord Kerr said, "but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

European Council President Donald Tusk has said that he believes Article 50 can be reversed.

When asked if the UK could unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification during the next two years, he said, "Formally, legally, yes."

Lord Kerr - the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 - agreed.

"You can change your mind while the process is going on," he said.

He acknowledged that this might annoy the rest of the EU, and be seen as a huge waste of time.

"They might try to extract a political price," Lord Kerr said, "but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512

I read that and that is not legal advice, that's the opinion of a man that wrote possibly the vaguest Article in any European Union treaty, and now the fact that it is so vague is coming back to bite everyone. If A50 was reversible, there could be a subsection in the Article stating it was, instead it says:

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It's unambiguous. There's not really any wriggle room there, the State must leave after 2 years unless unanimously decided against, as it states. No mention in the Treaty that it is reversible, so unless an EU Court rules otherwise and the Treaty is altered, that is what the UK and EU must go off.

Edited 16 July 2018 by Beechey

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I read that and that is not legal advice, that's the opinion of a man that wrote possibly the vaguest Article in any European Union treaty, and now the fact that it is so vague is coming back to bite everyone. If A50 was reversible, there could be a subsection in the Article stating it was, instead it says:

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It's unambiguous. There's not really any wriggle room there, the State must leave after 2 years unless unanimously decided against, as it states.

 

The EU will always bend the rules when it suits them. If we wanted to scrap A50 they'd let us.

[Beechey]

Just now, Webbo said:

The EU will always been the rules when it suits them. If we wanted to scrap A50 they'd let us.

I can't see them breaching their own Treaties so publicly. I suspect they'd wait for the UK to leave then immediately reaccept them as a member state rather than smashing the Treaty that creates the EU itself and everything they care for.

[Innovindil]

Quick unrelated question, since the new touchy feely mod rules are we allowed to call people daft? 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

I read that and that is not legal advice, that's the opinion of a man that wrote possibly the vaguest Article in any European Union treaty, and now the fact that it is so vague is coming back to bite everyone. If A50 was reversible, there could be a subsection in the Article stating it was, instead it says:

 

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

 

It's unambiguous. There's not really any wriggle room there, the State must leave after 2 years unless unanimously decided against, as it states. No mention in the Treaty that it is reversible, so unless an EU Court rules otherwise and the Treaty is altered, that is what the UK and EU must go off.

 

 

It was the first article I came to, but I have seen opinion offered by experts in International Law that concurs.

 

You'll probably find it with a little digging.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

Quick unrelated question, since the new touchy feely mod rules are we allowed to call people daft? 

 

Since criticising the rules is also forbidden, I won't, but feel free to call me anything you like.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Quick unrelated question, since the new touchy feely mod rules are we allowed to call people daft? 

I'm going to refer to Webbo as Napoleon from now on