Brexit!

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

 What or who on earth is Moose? 

 

Continuing to bang on about brexit would mean playing to a diminishing crowd. The polls have been clear for a very, very long time about that. At this very moment not being the original brexit party would kill it but in the longer term continuing in that vein would be entirely unsustainable. Whether it happens or not brexit no longer has popular support. 

Polling has barely moved from referendum day - I genuinely have no idea how you can come to the conclusions you have.

 

If the Tories (who are currently anything from 5 to 15 points ahead in polls) are finished they everyone else is already dead.

 

Lefties have been telling us the Conservative party has been dying since the 70's - it's a bit boring now to anyone over the age of 30.

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, HappyHamza said:

If a second referendum were to happen it is extremely likely remain wins

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-britain-against-leaving-eu-as-poll-of-polls-says-most-now-want-to-stay-a4257476.html%3famp

 

If the Tories were to continue banging on about brexit after a rejection of it - at a point in time when negotiations have gone on for over 3 years and brexiteers have failed to get anywhere close to their promises - then that would only speed up their demise. 

 

Whatever happens now the Tories are finished.  

Wow.  What nonsense.  For start there is no consensus on that the question would be, and you forget that the polls said that last time.  There is without doubt a silent Brexit group who don't say they would vote leave because of the abuse they get.

 

The Tories are never finished,

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Winchesterfox said:

I'd focus on getting a Prime Minister who doesn't break the laws we already have. Besides, the speaker is just asserting parliamentary sovereignty, which I thought Brexiters wanted.  

Ill informed nonsense.  Boris didn't break any laws because there were no laws on the subject.  The Supreme court has effectively created one through this decision by way of precedent.

[Winchesterfox]

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Ill informed nonsense.  Boris didn't break any laws because there were no laws on the subject.  The Supreme court has effectively created one through this decision by way of precedent

The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully.  You may not like it but it's a statement of fact. Read its website before accusing other people of being ill informed.  

[Winchesterfox]

14 minutes ago, Winchesterfox said:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully.  You may not like it but it's a statement of fact. Read its website before accusing other people of being ill informed.  

And while we're on the subject, courts can't create laws.  Only parliaments can do that.  This is basic stuff. 

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, MattP said:

It's a pretty big problem for Boris but realistically he can't run on a platform of no deal - he'll surely be running on the deal he has put down now or no deal when the time comes though and I don't think the ONT can demand anything other than that. 

 

 

Starting to sound like you could be right. No.10 seems to be rowing back on any absolute commitment not to advocate No Deal in an election manifesto, without saying they'd advocate it either.

 

The election stance could be: "Give us a majority, we'll go back to Brussels & they'll capitulate to Boris' proposal. If they don't, it's No Deal in January".

 

In theory, that might avoid the dilemma of either a full Farage onslaught if they sideline No Deal or dozens of One-Nation MPs, even ministers, opposing a pro-No Deal policy or leaving the party.

 

I don't think the EU would capitulate, but that's not the point - the Tories might be able to sell that prospect during an election so as to maintain some Tory & Leave unity and possibly win the election.

It's not an easy sell, though, is it? If their core message is that No Deal is only a backup option because the EU will capitulate.....when a few weeks earlier they've refused to capitulate?

[Saxondale]

I'm getting increasingly bored of the current government and leavers in general trying to portray the withdrawal agreement negotiations as if they're negotiating to buy a used car. Absolute f-ing idiots.

 

Here are some facts:

• The EU will not compromise the integrity of single market or the four pillars of freedom
• The EU will not allow anything that goes against the Good Friday Agreement

No amount of bluster will change these facts. Any proposed withdrawal agreement must be in accordance with these facts. Everything that we seem to be proposing goes against these facts.

 

This all boils down to the fact that BREXIT DOESN'T WORK. It is a failed project. The people who promoted it know this.

 

There is no version of Brexit which is both possible AND preferable. There just isn't. No amount of spin or bluster will change that.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Saxondale said:

I'm getting increasingly bored of the current government and leavers in general trying to portray the withdrawal agreement negotiations as if they're negotiating to buy a used car. Absolute f-ing idiots.

 

Here are some facts:

• The EU will not compromise the integrity of single market or the four pillars of freedom
• The EU will not allow anything that goes against the Good Friday Agreement

No amount of bluster will change these facts. Any proposed withdrawal agreement must be in accordance with these facts. Everything that we seem to be proposing goes against these facts.

 

This all boils down to the fact that BREXIT DOESN'T WORK. It is a failed project. The people who promoted it know this.

 

There is no version of Brexit which is both possible AND preferable. There just isn't. No amount of spin or bluster will change that.

What goes against the GFA?

 

Even David Trimble, one of the architects of that, says it doesn't. 

[Saxondale]

Just now, MattP said:

What goes against the GFA?

 

Even David Trimble, one of the architects of that, says it doesn't. 

A border?

[Guest MattP]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Starting to sound like you could be right. No.10 seems to be rowing back on any absolute commitment not to advocate No Deal in an election manifesto, without saying they'd advocate it either.

 

The election stance could be: "Give us a majority, we'll go back to Brussels & they'll capitulate to Boris' proposal. If they don't, it's No Deal in January".

 

In theory, that might avoid the dilemma of either a full Farage onslaught if they sideline No Deal or dozens of One-Nation MPs, even ministers, opposing a pro-No Deal policy or leaving the party.

 

I don't think the EU would capitulate, but that's not the point - the Tories might be able to sell that prospect during an election so as to maintain some Tory & Leave unity and possibly win the election.

It's not an easy sell, though, is it? If their core message is that No Deal is only a backup option because the EU will capitulate.....when a few weeks earlier they've refused to capitulate?

I think this is spot on.

 

It's going to be the Boris deal or no Deal - faced without a parliament giving the EU a consistent get out clause it will be very interesting to see how they then handle the negotiation, I'd expect concessions, but not to the extent Boris gets everything he wants.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Saxondale said:

A border?

It doesn't create a border. You clearly haven't even read it have you?

 

It allows for "checks" away from the border and down the Irish sea.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think this is spot on.

 

It's going to be the Boris deal or no Deal - faced without a parliament giving the EU a consistent get out clause it will be very interesting to see how they then handle the negotiation, I'd expect concessions, but not to the extent Boris gets everything he wants.

 

Of course, he'd have to win a majority to be in that position - and "Boris deal or No Deal" is a hard sell to voters if the EU has just rejected Boris deal. They'd have to convince potential Tory voters opposed to No Deal that the EU would make major concessions....while every opposition party rubbished that claim & pointed out that the EU had just rejected his proposal.

 

He'd also probably need to win a large majority. Otherwise, as you said yesterday, he'd risk a repeat scenario of One Nation Tory MPs refusing to support No Deal, if it came to that....unless he somehow tied them down with a commitment to support No Deal if negotiations failed....and I suspect many of them would be reluctant if they shared my expectation that the EU would make only minor concessions so it was really a semi-concealed No Deal policy. We could end up back in an impasse, unless the Tories won a landslide.

 

All sorts could yet happen this month, of course, never mind during an election - and Farage's stance will be important if we do end up with an election and the Tories adopt this stance. I find Farage hard to predict.

[Izzy]

10 hours ago, MattP said:

Of course they are Moose. 

 

 

Good shout 

[Guest MattP]

I do @Alf Bentley - he's become increasingly hard to predict as well.

 

I also don't think we are as nailed on for a General Election as many people think.

 

Much more likely for me is the Remain majority in parliament just lets it sit in paralysis and hopes that will be enough to just force MP's to vote for a second referendum instead after they've installed Corbyn/Clarke/Beckett as PM. Probably with May's deal v Remain as the option on the ballot paper 

Edited 10 October 2019 by MattP

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, Winchesterfox said:

And while we're on the subject, courts can't create laws.  Only parliaments can do that.  This is basic stuff. 

Not strictly true as common law forms part of our constitution.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I also don't think we are as nailed on for a General Election as many people think.

 

Much more likely for me is the Remain majority in parliament just lets it sit in paralysis and hopes that will be enough to just force MP's to vote for a second referendum instead after they've installed Corbyn/Clarke/Beckett as PM. Probably with May's deal v Remain as the option on the ballot paper 

 

Time will tell, but I don't see that happening. It sounds as if an attempt is in the offing to get a vote for a second referendum, May v. Remain - but soon, not after further long paralysis.

 

Aside from anything else, if they pursued the strategy you mention, they'd have to maintain it for at least 6 months. It would be hard to arrange and hold a referendum in less than 6 months, surely - and if an election were held before the referendum, they'd run the risk of a Tory majority govt being elected and just cancelling it. Plus, the public is already getting seriously angry about the continued uncertainty - would opposition parties really want to provoke them for much longer?

 

Also, the SNP are likely to want an early election as they expect to do very well. If Lab/LDs blocked an early election (which I don't expect), sooner rather than later the SNP would back the Tories in calling one, wouldn't they?

 

It must still be doubtful that there's a majority for a May v. Remain second referendum. If there is, I suppose the opposition could pass the legislation, call/accept an election & effectively dare Johnson to cancel it, if re-elected?

 

All the experts seem to think there's little chance of a temporary "unity govt", but I wonder if that's right? No chance of it being agreed for Corbyn to be temporary PM, I reckon. But surely the 14-day process could start, after a No Confidence vote, Corbyn could try to become a PM and fail & Labour could then agree to back another acceptable candidate......if they want to go down that route?

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Winchesterfox said:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully.  You may not like it but it's a statement of fact. Read its website before accusing other people of being ill informed.  

Acting unlawfully is not the same a breaking a law.  For an act to be illegal it must be expressly proscribed by statute (those laws which are written as passed by Parliament as you note), and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.  This case was the latter - the Supreme court decided that as the law did not expressly allow the PM to Prorogue in this case it was unlawful.  It was a Supreme Court judgement which is now part of case law, which is actually a large part of our legal system.

Edited 10 October 2019 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

I do @Alf Bentley - he's become increasingly hard to predict as well.

 

I also don't think we are as nailed on for a General Election as many people think.

 

Much more likely for me is the Remain majority in parliament just lets it sit in paralysis and hopes that will be enough to just force MP's to vote for a second referendum instead after they've installed Corbyn/Clarke/Beckett as PM. Probably with May's deal v Remain as the option on the ballot paper 

A second referedum will take 6-9 Months to organise.  Can you imagine this going on for that long? It would be unheard of to block a General election in this circumstance.  Pathetic response from a scared opposition who know damn well they are not in a position to win a majority.  I read earlier that the EU might only allow an extension for say 2 months to allow a general election.  Hopefully they can also see this position is untenable.

[Strokes]

44 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Not strictly true as common law forms part of our constitution.

 

24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Acting unlawfully is not the same a breaking a law.  For an act to be illegal it must be expressly proscribed by statute (those laws which are written as passed by Parliament as you note), and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.  This case was the latter - the Supreme court decided that as the law did not expressly allow the PM to Prorogue in this case it was unlawful.  It was a Supreme Court judgement which is now part of case law, which is actually a large part of our legal system.

 

1 hour ago, Winchesterfox said:

And while we're on the subject, courts can't create laws.  Only parliaments can do that.  This is basic stuff. 

Basic stuff lads.

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Sorry but if you seriously think the speaker arranging clandestine meetings with everyone from Dominic Grieve to David Sassoli is "asserting parliamentary soverienghty" then you have lost sight of everything the speaker is supposed to be about. That's before we even get to the horrific abuse of standing orders and urgent questions. 

 

Be careful if you support this, because if impartialality vanishes one day it might be a speaker working against you.

 

This sort of thing is FAR more important than Brexit. 

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that this parliament was elected since the Brexit referendum, and returned a minority government. This unusual situation has meant that, more than ever, the executive is very much the junior partner to parliament itself. Contrary to popular characterisation by leavers, parliament is split pretty much along the same lines as the country at large. All the speaker has done make sure that the executive is not able to overreach itself and bully parliament into something it doesn’t want and has explicitly voted against on numerous occasions - a no-deal exit.

 

I think he’s great.

[Winchesterfox]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Acting unlawfully is not the same a breaking a law.  For an act to be illegal it must be expressly proscribed by statute (those laws which are written as passed by Parliament as you note), and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.  This case was the latter - the Supreme court decided that as the law did not expressly allow the PM to Prorogue in this case it was unlawful.  It was a Supreme Court judgement which is now part of case law, which is actually a large part of our legal system

Maybe it depends how you define breaking the law, which I don't think is a legal phrase.  Boris didn't break an existing statute, so he didn't do anything illegal.  But he did something the Supreme Court unanimously decided he wasn't allowed to do, I.e. acted unlawfully, which created common law  Either way, he did something he shouldn't have done, and had to stop doing  Is that a fair assessment?

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

You seem to have lost sight of the fact that this parliament was elected since the Brexit referendum, and returned a minority government. This unusual situation has meant that, more than ever, the executive is very much the junior partner to parliament itself. Contrary to popular characterisation by leavers, parliament is split pretty much along the same lines as the country at large. All the speaker has done make sure that the executive is not able to overreach itself and bully parliament into something it doesn’t want and has explicitly voted against on numerous occasions - a no-deal exit.

 

I think he’s great.

Well of course you do, you aren't interested in facts or Erskine May, you just like a speaker who helps the cause you support and wilfully now seem to ignore this opens up precedent for others to do the same in the future which is terrible, such short term thinking.

 

Can you explain to me how fair and democratic it is that MP's stand on one manifesto they don't implement it? Do the people of Bracknell really now have to accept being represented by a Lib Dem MP? 

 

Would you be so tolerant if the MP for Cambridge just decided to campaign for a 2nd ref then after being elected switched to the Tories and demanded a hard Brexit? My feeling is that you wouldn't then be upholding the rights of that person or instructing the speaker to do so.

 

As for parliament being split down the middle as the public is -  around 75% of parliament voted to Remain.

 

Sorry but anyone who still defends Bercow is either so blinded by a desire to remain they've lost sight of what the job is supposed to be, or they are just lying.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

A second referedum will take 6-9 Months to organise.  Can you imagine this going on for that long? It would be unheard of to block a General election in this circumstance.  Pathetic response from a scared opposition who know damn well they are not in a position to win a majority.  I read earlier that the EU might only allow an extension for say 2 months to allow a general election.  Hopefully they can also see this position is untenable.

It's unheard of for an opposition to be calling for an election whilst avoiding an election after the governing party has all but collapsed and can't get a single piece of legislation through but they are doing it

 

The problem now is so many in parliament don't want any vote or election in which they could lose, we are truly into a new age of politics now. I think they fancy their chances in the courts more than they do with the public. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Well of course you do, you aren't interested in facts or Erskine May, you just like a speaker who helps the cause you support and wilfully now seem to ignore this opens up precedent for others to do the same in the future which is terrible, such short term thinking.

 

Can you explain to me how fair and democratic it is that MP's stand on one manifesto they don't implement it? Do the people of Bracknell really now have to accept being represented by a Lib Dem MP? 

 

Would you be so tolerant if the MP for Cambridge just decided to campaign for a 2nd ref then after being elected switched to the Tories and demanded a hard Brexit? My feeling is that you wouldn't then be upholding the rights of that person or instructing the speaker to do so.

 

As for parliament being split down the middle as the public is -  around 75% of parliament voted to Remain.

 

Sorry but anyone who still defends Bercow is either so blinded by a desire to remain they've lost sight of what the job is supposed to be, or they are just lying.

You've got to remember Matt, these are the same people who shout down Boris for being unelected, then are happy for Bercow to start handling our Brexit negotiations behind closed doors

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

You've got to remember Matt, these are the same people who shout down Boris for being unelected, then are happy for Bercow to start handling our Brexit negotiations behind closed doors

I'm just delighted they'll be so happy watching Steve Baker or Marc Francois continue with this "uphold the will of parliament" after the next election when they are elected to speaker.