Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

After telling parliament previously that the government were carrying out impact assessments actor by sector in excrutiating detail, David Davis has just admitted to a select committee that no such assessments have been carried out. 

 

Not only is this absurd, but Davis now has to be up for contempt of parliament. The man's a joke.

You've got to be kidding?

 

So has he actually lied to Parliament? Is that an offence?

[Bellend Sebastian]

Is it supposed to feel like a clown car being driven into a lake of raw sewage?

 

I'd feel a lot more confident in the process if it didn't

Edited 6 December 2017 by Bellend Sebastian
Can't spell

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

You've got to be kidding?

 

So has he actually lied to Parliament? Is that an offence?

Whether or not he has lied will be in the precise wording of previous answers. He certainly allowed the impression.to form that they were more than they are.

 

Aside from the question of whether or not he lied, he's admitted that the government has sought to withdraw from the Customs Union etc without having undertaken ANY assessment of the economic impact. It's flabbergasting.

 

He's admitted in an around about way that the Treasury forecasts that the Brexiters like to paint as highly unlikely are still the government's best estimate of the economic fallout of Brexit.

 

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Whether or not he has lied will be in the precise wording of previous answers. He certainly allowed the impression.to form that they were more than they are.

 

Aside from the question of whether or not he lied, he's admitted that the government has sought to withdraw from the Customs Union etc without having undertaken ANY assessment of the economic impact. It's flabbergasting.

 

He's admitted in an around about way that the Treasury forecasts that the Brexiters like to paint as highly unlikely are still the government's best estimate of the economic fallout of Brexit.

 

 

I think that it is actually beyond belief that they've done no assessments on this. Surely they have done the assessments but are too worried about what the economic impact is going to be to publicise it. So it's easier to just deny that they exist?  Which, in itself is probably more worrying than the claim that they have done nothing.

[Strokes]

Let’s put the money saved on assessments towards the nhs.

Edited 6 December 2017 by Strokes

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I think that it is actually beyond belief that they've done no assessments on this. Surely they have done the assessments but are too worried about what the economic impact is going to be to publicise it. So it's easier to just deny that they exist?  Which, in itself is probably more worrying than the claim that they have done nothing.

If that ever turns oit to be the case teresa may will be up for contempt too. Tbh given how useless the government are on everything else I find it highly likely they haven't. Which just beggars belief.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Let’s put the money saved on assessments towards the nhs.

Why not have a break from the thread and come back when you want to discuss politics?

There's a good lad.

[Guest Kopfkino]

18 hours ago, MattP said:

We chuckle at this hokey cokey Labour Brexit but this is the actual timeline of it, just imagine if they had been running the negotiation.

 

John McDonnell: Leave single market

 

Tom Watson: Stay in SM & CU

 

Jon Ashworth, Jenny Chapman: Leave SM

 

Diane Abbott: Keep freedom of movement

 

Corbyn, Keir Starmer: End FoM

 

Barry Gardiner: Staying in CU a disaster

 

Corbyn: Whips party to vote against staying in SM & CU

 

Starmer: Stay in SM & CU

 

It's a good job he is offering a load of free shit.

 

Just read the Fink's piece in The Times today about Labour's position being unviable and actually worrying given they could win a vote against any deal in parliament. It's a good read.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Why not have a break from the thread and come back when you want to discuss politics?

There's a good lad.

Is that what we are doing? You should’ve put the serious beacon on so I know

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If that ever turns oit to be the case teresa may will be up for contempt too. Tbh given how useless the government are on everything else I find it highly likely they haven't. Which just beggars belief.

 

Fair point. Either way it doesn't look good. Either they have no idea of the impact; or the impact is so bad they dare not publicise it!!

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Just read the Fink's piece in The Times today about Labour's position being unviable and actually worrying given they could win a vote against any deal in parliament. It's a good read.

I'm sure that's true.

 

I don't see how any political party could actually make a success of Brexit. There just isn't a viable position. It's damage limitation, which of course is always then going to raise the question of why we're going through with it...

[Rogstanley]

Billions in bribes to the DUP, billions going to the brexit department who haven't even done basic assessments, billions given away to the EU without a proper fight. May is allowing the country to be looted from the inside. She's too weak and too feeble for this job and she has to go with immediate effect before she causes any more catastrophic damage. 

Edited 6 December 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I'm sure that's true.

 

I don't see how any political party could actually make a success of Brexit. There just isn't a viable position. It's damage limitation, which of course is always then going to raise the question of why we're going through with it...

My suspicion is that either we won't or we'll rejoin the EU within 15 years.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

I'm sure that's true.

 

I don't see how any political party could actually make a success of Brexit. There just isn't a viable position. It's damage limitation, which of course is always then going to raise the question of why we're going through with it...

 

No but this is genuine analysis of the possibility of a vote on the deal being won by Labour and what they do with that victory if Article 50 can't be revoked. Effectively, voting down a deal might then become voting for no deal. A lot different to whinging about the viability of the project as a whole. Give it a read.

 

 

We have a minority government. You can forget everything else you learn about Brexit this week, but you can’t afford to forget that bit. You’re going to need it.

 

During the parliamentary debate on invoking Article 50 — the rule that enables member states to leave the European Union — the Labour Party and some Tory rebels insisted upon, and the government conceded, a meaningful vote on the terms of our departure once they become clear.

 

Whether or not this was an important concession at the time it was made, it certainly is now. Ordinarily the opposition would not have the ability to impose its policy, but now it might.

 

So for all that the Conservatives are in a horrendous position on Europe, Labour’s position matters just as much, because they could win a vote on the deal when it comes before the Commons.

 

The fact is that Labour’s position on Brexit is simply not viable — legally or politically. And in turn, this is storing up a dilemma that could cause the country, not just the party, real harm.

 

Let’s start with this question: can the United Kingdom, having invoked Article 50, now say it has changed its mind?

 

Fortunately Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the diplomat who drafted the article, has been liberal with his opinion on the matter. Yes, he says, he is sure that if we changed our mind we would be able to stay in the EU. And because of his experience and authority, this has given confidence to many Remainers who would like to believe him.

 

I have always found this confidence surprising. The person who drafts the law does not determine how the relevant court (in this case the European Court of Justice) will rule on any case involving it. In addition, while I have great respect for Lord Kerr, I am pretty sure that when he drafted the article, he did not give much thought (if any) to the ability of a state to change its mind once it had notified Brussels it was going to leave.

 

Can we really imagine that, as he sat down to write Article 50, he said to himself “it’s important that a country ought to be able unilaterally to back out of this” but then decided for a laugh that he wouldn’t mention how it would happen? Perhaps he wanted us to have months of fun playing a guessing game until he decided to pop up with the answer?

 

Since such an idea is ridiculous, it leaves only two possibilities. Maybe Lord Kerr originally believed that member states shouldn’t be able to change their minds about leaving but has since come around to the idea? I rather doubt this.

 

By far the likeliest explanation is that, drafting Article 50 in a hurry, it simply didn’t occur to him that countries that had invoked it would ever want to revoke it. Which is fine, but rather undermines the way he has been using his lofty position as the article’s author to add weight to his own interpretation.

 

Let’s use a bit of common sense here. If we decided to reverse Brexit, the EU would probably let us. It would never even get to court — the other member states would just let us drop the whole thing. So if the opposition wanted to abandon Brexit, Lord Kerr’s ambiguous drafting and irrelevant legal opinion wouldn’t matter.

 

And anyway there are plenty of lawyers who think that, whatever Lord Kerr’s drafting foibles, if it ever did end up in court the ECJ would allow us to remain a member state.

 

So one way or another, if it was as simple as changing our minds then we probably could.

 

But here’s the problem. It isn’t as simple as that. Labour isn’t advocating reversing Brexit. The party is committed to respecting the referendum result and leaving the EU. And this changes the legal and political position entirely.

 

When parliament comes to vote on the terms of our departure — which may not be a fully fledged deal but just a rough plan for leaving — Labour might be able to defeat the government with the help of some Tory rebels and minor parties. It might, as it has threatened all along, reject the proposed arrangements, seek more time and a return to the negotiating table.

 

We would only get more time if the other 27 members unanimously agreed to give us more. Given that we would just have rejected the deal they’d offered Britain, that is unlikely. Which would leave us with only one option: revoking Article 50 unilaterally.

 

Yet while we might be able to revoke it if we had truly changed our minds about leaving, I doubt we’d be able to do it if our intention — as would be Labour’s — was to invoke it again once we’d got a better deal.

 

I have spoken to a number of lawyers with experience of constitutional affairs who share my doubts that the ECJ would allow us to revoke Article 50 in such a way.

Lord Pannick, QC, for instance, notes that the article allows us to withdraw from the EU in accordance with our own “constitutional requirements”. He says that “I am very doubtful that the ECJ would accept that there is a power unilaterally to revoke under Article 50, where the constitutional requirements have not changed”. And he believes they would not have changed if Labour was seeking delay rather than abandonment of Brexit.

 

So if the government puts its Brexit deal to a vote in the Commons and loses, it is unlikely that the opposition would achieve anything more than losing whatever agreements had been struck. We would still have to leave in March 2019.

 

The alternative would be for the opposition to insist that we stay in the customs union and the single market for an indefinite period. Yet again, this would require the EU to agree to an arrangement while being told by us that it’s only temporary. It will strike Brussels as simply another British attempt to buy time and screw a better deal out of them. Why on earth should they agree to that?

 

In other words, Labour might find itself in a few months poised to win a meaningful vote on the terms of our EU departure, but unsure what to do with that victory.

If they want to be sure, they will have to decide. They can be the party for overturning the referendum altogether. They can be the party for staying in the single market and the customs union for good. Or they can let the government have its way. There are no other options.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

There isn't a viable position that meets the requirements of the leave campaign. The best option in my opinion is to stay in the Customs Union and Negotiate free trade.

 

To be honest I would delay it and hold a general election. May cant win here she is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. You have remainers shouting doom from one side and Brexiteers claiming its not enough.

 

The parties need to define their policies clearly and not based on supposed 'popular' opinion. We need to do what is best for the country here and not play politics and vote winning tactic. Pick a postion and stick to it. In or Out of EU and Hard or Soft Brexit, let the nation decide one final time.  

 

The one credit to the Government is they have chosen a path and they have stuck to it (whether the position is a good or bad one is debatable by all sides). I have no idea what Labours position is as it seems to change depending on the weather or what will win the most votes.

 

 

[Izzy]

You write beautifully @Kopfkino. 

 

Far to eloquent and intelligent for an internet football forum imo

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

There isn't a viable position that meets the requirements of the leave campaign. The best option in my opinion is to stay in the Customs Union and Negotiate free trade.

 

 

 

Absolutely the worst option. Most of the benefits of leaving come from being outside of the Customs Union.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You write beautifully @Kopfkino. 

 

Far to eloquent and intelligent for an internet football forum imo

 

It wasn't my writing . But I do do that too.

 

Edit: Even if that sentence doesn't show it

Edited 6 December 2017 by Kopfkino

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Billions in bribes to the DUP, billions going to the brexit department who haven't even done basic assessments, billions given away to the EU without a proper fight. May is allowing the country to be looted from the inside. She's too weak and too feeble for this job and she has to go with immediate effect before she causes any more catastrophic damage. 

Ordinarily I'd agree but unless that results in a labour government, TM is actually our best chance of the Tories ending up with a softish Brexit.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Absolutely the worst option. Most of the benefits of leaving come from being outside of the Customs Union.

'Benefits'

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Just read the Fink's piece in The Times today about Labour's position being unviable and actually worrying given they could win a vote against any deal in parliament. It's a good read.

It's a decent piece and it's what we have been saying all along, this is why we get bullshit cliches like a "jobs first" Brexit and complete contradictions spouted every week from different members of the opposition, throw enough out there to the public and they can hopefully cling onto the votes of those on both sides of the fence, to be fair it seems to be working for them.

 

I do expect the Lavour moderates to give one last huge push towards staying in the single market though, not just because it's the best option they have instead of reversing the result but it's also the option that could lead to the downfall of Corbyn and McDonnell, probably the last chance they have to get rid of them before they lose any influence they have themselves, Brexit is now being used for two civil wars in both parties.

 

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Billions in bribes to the DUP, billions going to the brexit department who haven't even done basic assessments, billions given away to the EU without a proper fight. May is allowing the country to be looted from the inside. She's too weak and too feeble for this job and she has to go with immediate effect before she causes any more catastrophic damage. 

All of those bribes are going to the Northern Ireland Execeutive, so it's going to be spent on investment, which as you know pays for itself anyway, so effectively the DUP are paying us to be in the coalition. I would had thought you would be totally behind it.

 

That's how it works isn't it?

 

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My suspicion is that either we won't or we'll rejoin the EU within 15 years.

Can you really see any of our main parties (ex Lib Dem) ever standing for election on a manifesto that would state we give up control of our own finances? Pretty sure rejoining would mean taking on the corpse that is the Euro and the debt that comes with it, it's extremely unlikely.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No but this is genuine analysis of the possibility of a vote on the deal being won by Labour and what they do with that victory if Article 50 can't be revoked. Effectively, voting down a deal might then become voting for no deal. A lot different to whinging about the viability of the project as a whole. Give it a read.

 

 

We have a minority government. You can forget everything else you learn about Brexit this week, but you can’t afford to forget that bit. You’re going to need it.

 

During the parliamentary debate on invoking Article 50 — the rule that enables member states to leave the European Union — the Labour Party and some Tory rebels insisted upon, and the government conceded, a meaningful vote on the terms of our departure once they become clear.

 

Whether or not this was an important concession at the time it was made, it certainly is now. Ordinarily the opposition would not have the ability to impose its policy, but now it might.

 

So for all that the Conservatives are in a horrendous position on Europe, Labour’s position matters just as much, because they could win a vote on the deal when it comes before the Commons.

 

The fact is that Labour’s position on Brexit is simply not viable — legally or politically. And in turn, this is storing up a dilemma that could cause the country, not just the party, real harm.

 

Let’s start with this question: can the United Kingdom, having invoked Article 50, now say it has changed its mind?

 

Fortunately Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the diplomat who drafted the article, has been liberal with his opinion on the matter. Yes, he says, he is sure that if we changed our mind we would be able to stay in the EU. And because of his experience and authority, this has given confidence to many Remainers who would like to believe him.

 

I have always found this confidence surprising. The person who drafts the law does not determine how the relevant court (in this case the European Court of Justice) will rule on any case involving it. In addition, while I have great respect for Lord Kerr, I am pretty sure that when he drafted the article, he did not give much thought (if any) to the ability of a state to change its mind once it had notified Brussels it was going to leave.

 

Can we really imagine that, as he sat down to write Article 50, he said to himself “it’s important that a country ought to be able unilaterally to back out of this” but then decided for a laugh that he wouldn’t mention how it would happen? Perhaps he wanted us to have months of fun playing a guessing game until he decided to pop up with the answer?

 

Since such an idea is ridiculous, it leaves only two possibilities. Maybe Lord Kerr originally believed that member states shouldn’t be able to change their minds about leaving but has since come around to the idea? I rather doubt this.

 

By far the likeliest explanation is that, drafting Article 50 in a hurry, it simply didn’t occur to him that countries that had invoked it would ever want to revoke it. Which is fine, but rather undermines the way he has been using his lofty position as the article’s author to add weight to his own interpretation.

 

Let’s use a bit of common sense here. If we decided to reverse Brexit, the EU would probably let us. It would never even get to court — the other member states would just let us drop the whole thing. So if the opposition wanted to abandon Brexit, Lord Kerr’s ambiguous drafting and irrelevant legal opinion wouldn’t matter.

 

And anyway there are plenty of lawyers who think that, whatever Lord Kerr’s drafting foibles, if it ever did end up in court the ECJ would allow us to remain a member state.

 

So one way or another, if it was as simple as changing our minds then we probably could.

 

But here’s the problem. It isn’t as simple as that. Labour isn’t advocating reversing Brexit. The party is committed to respecting the referendum result and leaving the EU. And this changes the legal and political position entirely.

 

When parliament comes to vote on the terms of our departure — which may not be a fully fledged deal but just a rough plan for leaving — Labour might be able to defeat the government with the help of some Tory rebels and minor parties. It might, as it has threatened all along, reject the proposed arrangements, seek more time and a return to the negotiating table.

 

We would only get more time if the other 27 members unanimously agreed to give us more. Given that we would just have rejected the deal they’d offered Britain, that is unlikely. Which would leave us with only one option: revoking Article 50 unilaterally.

 

Yet while we might be able to revoke it if we had truly changed our minds about leaving, I doubt we’d be able to do it if our intention — as would be Labour’s — was to invoke it again once we’d got a better deal.

 

I have spoken to a number of lawyers with experience of constitutional affairs who share my doubts that the ECJ would allow us to revoke Article 50 in such a way.

Lord Pannick, QC, for instance, notes that the article allows us to withdraw from the EU in accordance with our own “constitutional requirements”. He says that “I am very doubtful that the ECJ would accept that there is a power unilaterally to revoke under Article 50, where the constitutional requirements have not changed”. And he believes they would not have changed if Labour was seeking delay rather than abandonment of Brexit.

 

So if the government puts its Brexit deal to a vote in the Commons and loses, it is unlikely that the opposition would achieve anything more than losing whatever agreements had been struck. We would still have to leave in March 2019.

 

The alternative would be for the opposition to insist that we stay in the customs union and the single market for an indefinite period. Yet again, this would require the EU to agree to an arrangement while being told by us that it’s only temporary. It will strike Brussels as simply another British attempt to buy time and screw a better deal out of them. Why on earth should they agree to that?

 

In other words, Labour might find itself in a few months poised to win a meaningful vote on the terms of our EU departure, but unsure what to do with that victory.

If they want to be sure, they will have to decide. They can be the party for overturning the referendum altogether. They can be the party for staying in the single market and the customs union for good. Or they can let the government have its way. There are no other options.

The opposition doesn't have to have a policy. It exists to hold the government to account. Obviously if a deal goes before parliament then it will form a view but it is not them negotiating the deal. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The opposition doesn't have to have a policy. It exists to hold the government to account. Obviously if a deal goes before parliament then it will form a view but it is not them negotiating the deal. 

 

But the point is, you really have to have some idea of what you want to achieve, saying we're opposition, we're not negotiating so we don't need a policy is merely shirking. Let's be clear, a vote against any deal leads to no deal and therefore probably leads to a vote of no confidence. What do Labour propose to do then? The point is, Labour really needs to think about what it's going to do if it rejects the government's deal. 

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The opposition doesn't have to have a policy. It exists to hold the government to account. Obviously if a deal goes before parliament then it will form a view but it is not them negotiating the deal. 

Just to be clear on this as I am struggling to comprenhend what you have just written.

 

The biggest issue and negotiation in our lifetime and you think it's absolutely fine if the opposition doesn't even have a policy on it? I have no idea what to say to that.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's a decent piece and it's what we have been saying all along, this is why we get bullshit cliches like a "jobs first" Brexit and complete contradictions spouted every week from different members of the opposition, throw enough out there to the public and they can hopefully cling onto the votes of those on both sides of the fence, to be fair it seems to be working for them.

 

I do expect the Lavour moderates to give one last huge push towards staying in the single market though, not just because it's the best option they have instead of reversing the result but it's also the option that could lead to the downfall of Corbyn and McDonnell, probably the last chance they have to get rid of them before they lose any influence they have themselves, Brexit is now being used for two civil wars in both parties.

 

All of those bribes are going to the Northern Ireland Execeutive, so it's going to be spent on investment, which as you know pays for itself anyway, so effectively the DUP are paying us to be in the coalition. I would had thought you would be totally behind it.

 

That's how it works isn't it?

 

Can you really see any of our main parties (ex Lib Dem) ever standing for election on a manifesto that would state we give up control of our own finances? Pretty sure rejoining would mean taking on the corpse that is the Euro and the debt that comes with it, it's extremely unlikely.

Lmao you're desperate for there to be a problem in the Labour party. There are only 2 labour mps that want a hard Brexit. Yes the majority don't want to leave full stop but the party has always had the softest possible Brexit in sight. There has been some disagreement between Starmer and the leadership over the single market but even the leave the single market version worked have been very, very soft. Ultimately it's either soft Brexit or no Brexit. There is no chance of Corbyn being usurped. 

 

The Tories have been ruined by europe for the last 40 years. It's hilarious that you try to paint labour as the party wracked by European self loathing. There's in fighting amongst the cabinet.

 

What should have happened is that the parties should have formed some sort of Brexit council to ensue the negotiations weren't party political. That didn't happen because it can't with such a rabid set of Brexiters only existing in the tory party. The rest of the party has held itself hostage to three dozen mps and tried to make it look like hard brexit or no deal as a real possibility when the prime minister clearly wants a soft Brexit. The whole thing is ridiculous with may trying to take baby steps towards soft Brexit whilst giving out songbirds to appease hard Brexiters for as long as possible.