Brexit!

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Seems he hinted strongly at it, without actually saying it.....

 

Guardian live:

Government to pull Brexit bill if timetable is not agreed

David Linden, SNP MP for Glasgow East, asks the prime minister about reports on twitter (see below), that the government with pull the withdrawal bill if the programme motion is not passed.

Johnson says:

I will in no way allow months more of this. If parliament refuses to allow Brexit to happen and instead gets its way and decided to delay everything until January or possibly longer, in those circumstances [the government cannot] continue with this ... I must say that the bill will have to be pulled and we will have to go forward to a general election. I will argue at that election: ‘let’s get Brexit done’. And the leader of the opposition will make his case to spend 2020 having two referendums – one on Brexit and one on Scotland...

Mr Speaker, there is another path. That is to accept, as I have done, that this deal does not give us everything that we want. And all of us can find clauses and provisions to which we can [object], as we can in any compromise. But it also gives us the opportunity to conclude that there is no dishonour in setting aside the entirely legitimate desire to deliver the perfect deal in the interest of seizing the great deal that is now within our grasp.

Ah fair enough - I'm not sure how he manages to ask for this though without also requesting extension?

 

This debate is quite depressing to be honest - very few serious questions being asked from the Conservative benches who look totally bored. 

 

As for Labour, I'm wondering what the point of even having some of these MP's is? They seem unable to comprehend anymore than British people will select the next government, it's like they have got so used to taking rules and regulations from the EU they can't now imagine doing it themselves. 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Voll Blau said:

Peter Oborne pulling no punches...

 

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/

Quite clear that the big hairy spider at the centre of this web of deceit and lies is Dominic Cummings. This odious creature of the night boasts of gaming the system to dupe people into believing whatever he wants. People should really educate themselves to spot this sort of nonsense in the same way as how they learn to distinguish scammers on the internet.

 

Unfortunately I can’t see that happening any time soon.

Edited 22 October 2019 by WigstonWanderer

[Jon the Hat]

Next up, we as MPs need days to read all this and understand it, but we should put it to the people in a referendum!  Those people who we claim didn't listen to us last time.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ah fair enough - I'm not sure how he manages to ask for this though without also requesting extension?

 

 

Legally, it seems he has already requested an extension to end of January, despite doing so unwillingly.

 

Presumably, he's confident (with justification) that if he triggers an election in Nov/Dec, the EU will approve that extension......and he'll be able to blame "the Remainer parliament" for forcing him to do it, as a big part of his "Get Brexit done" / "People v. Parliament" election campaign, designed to win his a 5-year landslide & unfettered power.

 

That's despite the fact that it looks likely that he could get his Brexit Deal passed, even if he has to accept a few amendments (e.g. re. parliamentary scrutiny of the future relationship negotiations, ease of ending up with No Deal - I doubt he'd be forced to accept either a referendum or a Customs Union, though I might be wrong). It's all about power and ego for him, I think, not Brexit....though I'm sure Cummings is banking on winning a landslide & having free rein in January.....

 

How easily he could get an election is a bigger issue, if that is his strategy....

 

Edited 22 October 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Next up, we as MPs need days to read all this and understand it, but we should put it to the people in a referendum!  Those people who we claim didn't listen to us last time.

These same people said they'd vote against the deal because it was bad before it was even released. They don't give a crap what's in it and never have. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

Legally, it seems he has already requested an extension to end of January, despite doing so unwillingly.

 

Presumably, he's confident (with justification) that if he triggers an election in Nov/Dec, the EU will approve that extension......and he'll be able to blame "the Remainer parliament" for forcing him to do it, as a big part of his "Get Brexit done" / "People v. Parliamkent" election campaign, designed to win his a 5-year landslide & unfettered power.

 

That's despite the fact that it looks likely that he could get his Brexit Deal passed, even if he has to accept a few amendments (e.g. re. parliamentary scrutiny of the future relationship negotiations, ease of ending up with No Deal - I doubt he'd be forced to accept either a referendum or a Customs Union, though I might be wrong). It's all about power and ego for him, I think, not Brexit....though I'm sure Cummings is banking on winning a landslide & having free rein in January.....

 

How easily he could get an election is a bigger issue, if that is his strategy....

I'm not sure he can get his deal through the house at all now - I did for a while but I think parliament might just be doing that with the intention of unravelling it, even if it does pass here it wouldn't surprise me to then see the HoL get involved.

 

I just don't see this parliament passing any sort of Brexit unfortunately but I hope I'm wrong and we can avoid what would be an extremely nasty election (though part of me thinks it deserves go be against certain members of the house who lied to get into it in 2017)

[Alf Bentley]

Seems that I might be wrong in thinking there's little chance of a CU amendment passing....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/22/pro-deal-mps-try-to-force-johnson-to-seek-eu-customs-union

 

"Johnson could see his Brexit legislation amended to require him to negotiate a customs union with the EU, after at least five pro-deal MPs said they would support this option.

The MPs – two former Tories, Nick Boles and Ken Clarke, plus at least three pro-deal Labour MPs, Melanie Onn, Gareth Snell and Ruth Smeeth – have put their names to a measure giving the government a mandate to negotiate a customs union.

The amendment to the Brexit bill would not change the UK’s proposed treaty with the EU, so Johnson has the option of accepting the amendment and then going into an election arguing to overturn it."

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Seems that I might be wrong in thinking there's little chance of a CU amendment passing....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/22/pro-deal-mps-try-to-force-johnson-to-seek-eu-customs-union

 

"Johnson could see his Brexit legislation amended to require him to negotiate a customs union with the EU, after at least five pro-deal MPs said they would support this option.

The MPs – two former Tories, Nick Boles and Ken Clarke, plus at least three pro-deal Labour MPs, Melanie Onn, Gareth Snell and Ruth Smeeth – have put their names to a measure giving the government a mandate to negotiate a customs union.

The amendment to the Brexit bill would not change the UK’s proposed treaty with the EU, so Johnson has the option of accepting the amendment and then going into an election arguing to overturn it."

Surely this is classed as a wrecking amendment given the European parliament has said this is the final deal? This requires more renegotiation after re-opening the withdrawal act again.

 

If they want a customs union Brexit they need a General Election and to campaign on it.

 

I don't see how they could force a PM to do this.

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Surely this is classed as a wrecking amendment given the European parliament has said this is the final deal? This requires more renegotiation after re-opening the withdrawal act again.

 

If they want a customs union Brexit they need a General Election and to campaign on it.

 

I don't see how they could force a PM to do this.

That CU would be the future relationship, so they are trying to tie his hands on legislation not due for over 12 months or possibly longer.

[Winchesterfox]

 

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

Boris confirms he'll withdraw deal if timetable not voted on and call a GE.

I think Johnson can ask for a general election, but under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2/3 of parliament needs to agree for it to happen.  

 

57 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Corbyn totally missing the point that if we want to maintain or improve or indeed reduce standards, it will be up to our Parliament to pass those laws.  So used to have the EU do everything, they seem to have forgotten what our Parliament is for.  Mental.

Corbyn's point is that the only reason for the government to remove the text from the previous withdrawal agreement is to lower standards.  If the government were serious about maintaining or improving standards, they could leave the previous WA text in to reassure the other parties and the public.  It's no coincidence that Johnson chose authors of Britannia Unchained (a book that supported lower employment standards) for his Cabinet - Raab, Truss and Patel.   You may or may not agree with the idea of lower standards, but Corbyn is just calling out Johnson's lies.    

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Winchesterfox said:

Corbyn's point is that the only reason for the government to remove the text from the previous withdrawal agreement is to lower standards.  If the government were serious about maintaining or improving standards, they could leave the previous WA text in to reassure the other parties and the public.  It's no coincidence that Johnson chose authors of Britannia Unchained (a book that supported lower employment standards) for his Cabinet - Raab, Truss and Patel.   You may or may not agree with the idea of lower standards, but Corbyn is just calling out Johnson's lies.    

When we leave the EU the British people will decide on standards of all things when we go to a General Election.

 

It amazes me how many people in Labour appear to have either forgotten this, or basically admitted defeat already electorally.

 

And if the Tories do start to lower standards - they'll be removed for office very quickly as there isn't any public desire for less holidays, maternity leave, rights or wages.

[Winchesterfox]

32 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Next up, we as MPs need days to read all this and understand it, but we should put it to the people in a referendum!  Those people who we claim didn't listen to us last time.

They wouldn't need so long to understand if it the government had produced an impact assessment.  But that would show what a bad deal it is.    

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, Winchesterfox said:

 

I think Johnson can ask for a general election, but under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2/3 of parliament needs to agree for it to happen.  

 

Corbyn's point is that the only reason for the government to remove the text from the previous withdrawal agreement is to lower standards.  If the government were serious about maintaining or improving standards, they could leave the previous WA text in to reassure the other parties and the public.  It's no coincidence that Johnson chose authors of Britannia Unchained (a book that supported lower employment standards) for his Cabinet - Raab, Truss and Patel.   You may or may not agree with the idea of lower standards, but Corbyn is just calling out Johnson's lies.    

No, not tying the hands of the British Government is also a perfectly good reason to take out unnecessary elements.

 

2 minutes ago, Winchesterfox said:

They wouldn't need so long to understand if it the government had produced an impact assessment.  But that would show what a bad deal it is.    

Ask remainer Bureaucrats to write yet another doom laden load of nonsense which neglects to include any of the uncertain benefits while including all the uncertain risks?  No thanks.

Edited 22 October 2019 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

 

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

When we leave the EU the British people will decide on standards of all things when we go to a General Election.

 

It amazes me how many people in Labour appear to have either forgotten this, or basically admitted defeat already electorally.

 

And if the Tories do start to lower standards - they'll be removed for office very quickly as there isn't any public desire for less holidays, maternity leave, rights or wages.

We have little room to reduce workers rights - we are competing for talent with the world.  A lot of companies offer better rights than the law requires anyhow.  In know mine does.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

We have little room to reduce workers rights - we are competing for talent with the world.  A lot of companies offer better rights than the law requires anyhow.  In know mine does.

Hmmm...I think that depends on the area of work tbh, and it's questionable as to whether or not the competitive model is a.) anywhere close to optimal in terms of helping as many people as possible and b.) being applied properly anyway even if it is.

 

NB. Did you check out the figures I posted in the XR thread for the evidence you wanted?

Edited 22 October 2019 by leicsmac

[Mike Oxlong]

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

We have little room to reduce workers rights - we are competing for talent with the world.  A lot of companies offer better rights than the law requires anyhow.  In know mine does.

Which branch of Sports Direct are you at ? 

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Which branch of Sports Direct are you at ? 

Ha.  Do you think stopping free movement will increase or decrease the number of people applying for jobs in warehouses?  Once the wages go up, automation will follow anyway.

 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

We have little room to reduce workers rights - we are competing for talent with the world.  A lot of companies offer better rights than the law requires anyhow.  In know mine does.

 

I'm sure that's true for some employers and some employees - employees with talent or skills that are in short supply, and employers that are prospering. Doubtless that will continue.

 

But are Sports Direct, Amazon, Asda, care homes and McDonald's "competing for talent with the world"? Do they "offer better rights than the law requires"? Would they do so, if given the chance to reduce rights? People like Mike Ashley.....

 

Workers at car plants have skills to varying degrees and mostly get a half-decent wage....would that inevitably continue if the firms see their profits cut by all the extra Brexit red tape & tariffs and call for pay cuts to keep plants open?

 

If tax revenues shrink due to stagnant growth & the "need" to cut Corporation Tax to the bone, will nurses, police & council workers enjoy secure jobs, secure rights & good pay? Will they be in a strong bargaining position?

 

Oh! I'm sure some people will continue to make megabucks, others will continue to do OK.....but a growing number will be vulnerable to having their rights and incomes slashed. A continuation of the ongoing increase in inequality, but on steroids.

 

On @MattP's point that the Tories will be thrown out if they slash people's rights.....well, if Johnson gets a 5-year majority in the pending "People v. Elite/Remainer Parliament" election that gives him 5 years of total power to set the terms of the USA-lite British social system. Not to be defeatist, it might not happen, but is an obvious risk as Matt's polls show.

 

Even after that, if voters are disgusted by 5 years of Tories slashing rights & living standards, they might turn to the Left.....but they might turn to the Far Right, crime or completely disengage from democratic politics. There'll be plenty of media and politicians persuading them to blame foreigners, the liberal elite or whoever.

 

Five years also gives the Tories ample time to make it much harder to reverse their right-wing revolution. Just for starters, the Queen's Speech included a "voter suppression bill" to make photo ID compulsory for voting.....knowing that Tory voters are much more likely to have a passport or driving licence, or the money to afford photo ID....

[Winchesterfox]

18 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

No, not tying the hands of the British Government is also a perfectly good reason to take out unnecessary elements.

 

Ask remainer Bureaucrats to write yet another doom laden load of nonsense which neglects to include any of the uncertain benefits while including all the uncertain risks?  No thanks.

 

Not tying the government's hands is a fair argument, but Johnson didn't put that case to the public.  What he did say was 'We have no intention of falling behind Europe' on standards, and then he did the one thing that made that possible.  And saying you won't accept any evidence in an impact assessment because you assert that all the people who write it are remainer bureaucrats is a bit feeble.  It's not bureacrats that has made the pound drop against other major currencies since the referendum, and Honda decide to stop making cars in Swindon etc.  Again, if Johnson had said 'we expect the economy will take a hit of x billion in the next few years, but we think it's worth it because of y', that would be an argument that the public could consider.  Unfortunately Johnson has a history of tlling whoppers, and you can't blame people for being suspicious.  

[Mike Oxlong]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ha.  Do you think stopping free movement will increase or decrease the number of people applying for jobs in warehouses?  Once the wages go up, automation will follow anyway.

 

I suspect that automation could present a significant risk to social structure but that’s another argument 

[Guest MattP]

I have no words anymore

 

How is it that so often the most educated and intelligent are also the most stupid people you can imagine?

[RoboFox]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

There'll be plenty of media and politicians persuading them to blame foreigners, the liberal elite or whoever.

Sounds familiar.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

I have no words anymore

 

How is it that so often the most educated and intelligent are also the most stupid people you can imagine?

The bloke is a ****wit.

[Jon the Hat]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm sure that's true for some employers and some employees - employees with talent or skills that are in short supply, and employers that are prospering. Doubtless that will continue.

 

But are Sports Direct, Amazon, Asda, care homes and McDonald's "competing for talent with the world"? Do they "offer better rights than the law requires"? Would they do so, if given the chance to reduce rights? People like Mike Ashley.....

 

Workers at car plants have skills to varying degrees and mostly get a half-decent wage....would that inevitably continue if the firms see their profits cut by all the extra Brexit red tape & tariffs and call for pay cuts to keep plants open?

 

If tax revenues shrink due to stagnant growth & the "need" to cut Corporation Tax to the bone, will nurses, police & council workers enjoy secure jobs, secure rights & good pay? Will they be in a strong bargaining position?

 

Oh! I'm sure some people will continue to make megabucks, others will continue to do OK.....but a growing number will be vulnerable to having their rights and incomes slashed. A continuation of the ongoing increase in inequality, but on steroids.

 

On @MattP's point that the Tories will be thrown out if they slash people's rights.....well, if Johnson gets a 5-year majority in the pending "People v. Elite/Remainer Parliament" election that gives him 5 years of total power to set the terms of the USA-lite British social system. Not to be defeatist, it might not happen, but is an obvious risk as Matt's polls show.

 

Even after that, if voters are disgusted by 5 years of Tories slashing rights & living standards, they might turn to the Left.....but they might turn to the Far Right, crime or completely disengage from democratic politics. There'll be plenty of media and politicians persuading them to blame foreigners, the liberal elite or whoever.

 

Five years also gives the Tories ample time to make it much harder to reverse their right-wing revolution. Just for starters, the Queen's Speech included a "voter suppression bill" to make photo ID compulsory for voting.....knowing that Tory voters are much more likely to have a passport or driving licence, or the money to afford photo ID....

As ever, well argued but not something I agree with.  I don't expect the economy to struggle under this deal, so hopefully they vote for it!

 

I would say that the argument against photo ID for voting is nonsense - they took the stats of people who where turned away and then where surprised that some didn't come back.  Not many people would bother to go back if they were turned away for any reason.  This is important though, hence the Government also says it will provide free photo ID to those who cannot afford it.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

As ever, well argued but not something I agree with.  I don't expect the economy to struggle under this deal, so hopefully they vote for it!

 

I would say that the argument against photo ID for voting is nonsense - they took the stats of people who where turned away and then where surprised that some didn't come back.  Not many people would bother to go back if they were turned away for any reason.  This is important though, hence the Government also says it will provide free photo ID to those who cannot afford it.

Does a growing economy transpose to less inequality, though? I think that was Alfs main fear in his post, increased inequality between rich and poor and additional polarisation.And unrest to boot.