Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Tea anyone?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
I'm not sure, to be honest. If he's instructed by parliament to request an extension, I don't see how he can refuse to do so without also having to resign.

And if he bluntly refused to resign and demanded to be allowed call an election instead?

Removed from office forcefully?

How does that work?

And if so?  Who to succeed or assume Prime Minister's role under the optics of Boris Johnson beng removed from his role in preference to allowing the public to decide all political careers from the ballot box in a GE?

And if he was removed through legal process of whatever kind wouldn't it then anyway be essential that a GE be called immediately to ensure trust in the democratic process between the people and the Parliament is maintained? - as there would definitely be a percentage of the population that wanted their disquiet at such activities to be registered in - a vote.

SecretFly wrote:Why don't the masses just go on to the street and demand an election now?

The balance of power (and the election outcome) could well be different if the election is held mid-October vs early November. Hence half the masses want one thing, half want the other.

Fixed Parliament rules he can't demand a GE without 2/3:approval.

Cameron has screwed him over...

Resignation seems a better option.

I see his own brother agrees with me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Why don't the masses just go on to the street and demand an election now?

The balance of power (and the election outcome) could well be different if the election is held mid-October vs early November. Hence half the masses want one thing, half want the other.

Well that's perfect tailoring! No problems with that. Honesty is all I look for in the battles for public opinion.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Fixed Parliament rules he can't demand a GE without 2/3:approval.

Cameron has screwed him over...

Resignation seems a better option.

I see his own brother agrees with me.

But doesn't agree with him?

How generous the Johnson's are. Providing a character for both sides of the debate to hate?

'Oh no they don't!!'
'Oh yes they do!!'

Isn't a referendum and better option than a GE?

The disagreement seems to be other whether the last referendum gave mandate for a no-deal brexit, so ask that question.

Afro wrote:Isn't a referendum and better option than a GE?

The disagreement seems to be other whether the last referendum gave mandate for a no-deal brexit, so ask that question.

It would be better.
Better for BJ because he stays on as PM without a GE.
Better for Remainers, who have been asking for one.
Better for Leavers, who would most likely win again - and assuming they did, better for everyone to get it confirmed.

Except - if it was no deal vs deal vs no Brexit, it would have to be the most popular, not a majority, as none of those would get a majority.

Edit - oh, and better because it focusses on the issue at hand and nothing else.

A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:  I also believe that reality and the response to his actions to date have been on a scale they did not foresee, and the standard Boris BS and blustering have been fully exposed, in parliament if not yet in the newspapers that have supported him to date. But they are all going to get increasingly nervous about backing the wrong horse.

But that absolves the common punters.  It's always a debate dragged back to 'media' and 'politicians'.  "Let them decide... but they're all making a dog's dinner of it".
No, you decide - as in you a citizen observer.  Which horse is the right horse?  May was the polar opposite of Boris.  She's gone.  Parliament did to her what they are now trying to do to Boris.  

So what horse is in the stables that would unite a majority of common citizens, media and politicians so that the Pantomime would end and Northern Europe might move on after three years of endless talk?  Is there a name there?  Too many want to keep blaming media and politicians for the show.  Why don't the masses just go on to the street and demand an election now?  Why don't the people want to take back control and once again GIVE politicians their orders?  If you believe your opinion is the majority one (either side) then an election should not be feared but longed for .... IF you believe, that is.

At the moment BJ is making May look competent. He's even making Corbyn look competent.

Soul Requiem wrote:A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

I like that. If it was just deal or no deal, then hard-line Remainers would all vote for the first option.

Having it two parts then gets them to vote no for the first one and therefore, not eligible to vote in part two.

Or for people like myself who voted to Remain, but accept the result, I would vote yes to part one, as I believe we should honour the first vote, but deal for the second as I don't agree with a no-deal exit

Soul Requiem wrote:A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

We've already had the first one - why not just the 2nd one?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

We've already had the first one - why not just the 2nd one?

Because all signs show that the public now support remain, even Rees-Mogg says so.

Afro wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

I like that. If it was just deal or no deal, then hard-line Remainers would all vote for the first option.

Having it two parts then gets them to vote no for the first one and therefore, not eligible to vote in part two.

Or for people like myself who voted to Remain, but accept the result, I would vote yes to part one, as I believe we should honour the first vote, but deal for the second as I don't agree with a no-deal exit

If it is a deal like that - vote with your conscience and the knowledge you have of the state of things now not because the last one got over the line. If you want to vote for Brexit that is your choice but 'just because' is not the best of reasons.

I know there is a hardcore who will vote for Brexit regardless, but I wonder how many of the less fervent voters would stick to that path if the government was honest about the impact assessments they have worked so hard to hide or rubbish.

I despise Nigel Farage. He's said this recently on the BBC:

"[Boris Johnson is] calling for a general election and, unbelievably, the Labour party want to stop Brexit and want to stop us having a vote."

It's unbelievable because it's not true!

I'm so tired of lies. If you have a strong case, you don't need to lie.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I despise Nigel Farage. He's said this recently on the BBC:

"[Boris Johnson is] calling for a general election and, unbelievably, the Labour party want to stop Brexit and want to stop us having a vote."

It's unbelievable because it's not true!

I'm so tired of lies. If you have a strong case, you don't need to lie.

Yep. Good old Nige. At least he's consistent - why change the habit of a lifetime?

I despise the toothless BBC that refuse to hold him to account for his BS.

The only consolation (hope?) is that he's not winning new converts any more with this kind of thing.

Evening Standard headline. I guess editors live for stories like this
'Blow for Bojo as Bro Jo Go Goes'...

I saw that. I'd have put a hyphen in 'go-goes', but that's just me

Soul Requiem wrote:A two part question for a referendum wouldn't be a bad idea.

1. Brexit yes or no?
2. If yes, deal or no deal?

Not bad, but why can't those who No to Brexit also not vote on number 2?

Let's assume: question 1 is split 51:49 in favour of Leave, but on question 2 all Remainers support a Deal while 40 of the 51% who voted Brexit support no deal.
So under your system we'd have no deal despite it being not favoured by the public 60-40?

@SecretFly

This General Election delay isn't some conspiracy or effort to block the people having a say.
It's very simple. Power is power. Boris has lost power, and for now Corbyn probably has slightly more of an influence in parliament than Boris.
Thus Labour have the option of calling an election in November which suits them, rather than October which suits the Tories. Got it?

Any renewed Referendum that mentioned 'Deal' would have to entail that the voting public had a pretty damn conclusive opinion of what the Deal would be.  Yes?  No?  

You can't just pretend you're giving the public more of a say by having an option that simply says Deal or No Deal.  Even Edmonds tells the contestants what the Deal is.

In the real world with such a political hot potato, there is no way you can simply ask people to support politicians making a non-specific 'Deal' with the EU when it's already been established that many people trust none of their politicians.

Conclusion:  you can never give enough options in a referendum to satisfy any and all Brexit solutions and still have a realistically doable Referendum poll.

But you can help clarify the very sticking point.  You can make the notorious Backstop the central component.

So:

1. Brexit with Backstop Guarantee Deal
2. Brexit with Deal excluding Backstop Guarantee

?

Both Brexit options would be Deal.... but one option would be to end the saga of the Backstop blockade at least definitively for the British side.  Then on to the EU to see if they intended respecting the expressed wish of the British people this time.  

And you see how difficult it is to overcome the fact that regardless of how the British people vote in a Referendum that expresses the desire to Leave the EU, the EU itself are under no constraints or obligations to the British people.  The EU can still refuse to agree with any arrangement that does not include the Backstop Guarantee.  

So how then, despite the British people giving expressed wish to have a Leave Deal without a Backstop Guarantee, can any 'DEAL' be guaranteed?
All the EU has to do is to keep refusing to make a Deal.  A Deal is between two sides.  A British Referendum that seeks Brexit with a Deal has no authority over EU negotiators.  If they want never ending negotiations, if they never want to sanction any Deal, then the Referendum of the British people, and however many of them, is meaningless.

In a sane reality, Referendums that have the option of Brexit with a Deal Must include a defined Deadline for agreement of a Deal, or else UK theoretically remains in the EU indefinitely whilst Deal negotiations go on indefinitely.

If you were interested in buying a car and offered a certain price, you wouldn't be too happy that you were still walking to work 10 years later because the owner didn't want to accept your offer but still kept ringing you at the weekend offering the car at his preferred price.  In the real world of course, you wouldn't be still walking after 10 years.  You'd just tell him to f**k off, tell him no deals and just go buy a different car.

Corbyn doesn't want to call an election in November, he wants one on October 15th but only after the delay bill has been fully signed off, that is what's so bizarre about it.

Soul Requiem wrote:Corbyn doesn't want to call an election in November, he wants one on October 15th but only after the delay bill has been fully signed off, that is what's so bizarre about it.

Yes that's because he's tactically inept. When others in the Labour party explain political strategy to him he may u-turn.

It Must Be Love wrote:@SecretFly

This General Election delay isn't some conspiracy or effort to block the people having a say.
It's very simple. Power is power. Boris has lost power, and for now Corbyn probably has slightly more of an influence in parliament than Boris.
Thus Labour have the option of calling an election in November which suits them, rather than October which suits the Tories. Got it?

What's the difference in dates if they want Boris and Tories out yesterday?  

Brexit Delay.  That's the difference.  A big difference for parties that want as many delays as possible to that which is called Brexit...thus the Backstop Guarantee.

It isn't conspiracy, it's politics as expressed in public by politicians, their handlers, their supporters and the media.

Just when the media try to paint Boris as Mr No Deal Brexit (to throw all the Brexit in Trouble headlines in his direction), Nigel shows up to remind them the real champion of No Deal Brexit isn't even in Parliament.

Stop that man talking!!!! Nobody who isn't an MP should have a view on Brexit!!!!

There's having a view and there's lying, Fly. 'The Labour party want to stop Brexit and want to stop us having a vote' is a lie - in fact, two lies in one!

Call me old fashioned, but I take a dim view of liars.

SecretFly wrote:Conclusion:  you can never give enough options in a referendum to satisfy any and all Brexit solutions and still have a realistically doable Referendum poll.

That's true.
Another concern I have is the public aren't aware of the trade offs and compromises we'll have to make during this process. Vote Leave promoted the delusional 'have your cake and eat it' outcome, while Remainers tend to focus on exaggerating short term problems while ignoring real medium and long terms problems.

For example, this has barely been discussed in the media:
UK is mainly a services economy. The EU are unique in the way they have been able to standardise services regulation, in a way that allows services trade between EU countries. A remarkable comparison is that in the US, services trade between different states is far behind trade between EU countries.
The trade deal the EU completed with Canada didn't have much provision for services. If the UK made a similar deal with the EU, it would be a disaster for the UK as it would give EU what it wanted (goods) while neglecting UK priorities (services). In reality if we are to make a free trade with the EU that actually suits us, we will have to compromise on things like free movement of people. The fact we don't have leverage compared to the EU in negotiations is going to mean the perception of us getting shafted, like in May's WA, keeps repeating itself over the process. Public have unrealistic expectations.

SecretFly wrote:So:

1. Brexit with Backstop Guarantee Deal
2. Brexit with Deal excluding Backstop Guarantee

Well obviously people would vote for number 2. But it doesn't exist. For example Norway and Sweden have a hard border, and they're closer aligned to each than Boris plans UK-EU. Norway is in the single market and still needs a hard border because it's not in CU. How could we avoid a border while being in neither SM or CU?

It Must Be Love wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Corbyn doesn't want to call an election in November, he wants one on October 15th but only after the delay bill has been fully signed off, that is what's so bizarre about it.

Yes that's because he's tactically inept. When others in the Labour party explain political strategy to him he may u-turn.

I assume the delay bill is a safety net to prevent things defaulting to a no deal come Oct 31.  Without that safety net in place surely everything will be too rushed and this General Election will end up just being a single issue election.  It will still end up being a single issue election but less so with the "Brexit date" being deferred.

Surely the major focus of remainers and the no to "no deal" MPs is to ensure Brexit doesn't occur Oct. 31.   For that goal it seems passing the deferral bill is paramount.

ps the proroguing of parliament has shortened the time available to do anything - which means headless chickens have to run even faster.

SecretFly wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:@SecretFly

This General Election delay isn't some conspiracy or effort to block the people having a say.
It's very simple. Power is power. Boris has lost power, and for now Corbyn probably has slightly more of an influence in parliament than Boris.
Thus Labour have the option of calling an election in November which suits them, rather than October which suits the Tories. Got it?

What's the difference in dates if they want Boris and Tories out yesterday?  

Brexit Delay.  That's the difference.  A big difference for parties that want as many delays as possible to that which is called Brexit...thus the Backstop Guarantee.

It isn't conspiracy, it's politics as expressed in public by politicians, their handlers, their supporters and the media.

You mean 'No Deal Brexit' delay. Which is indeed one of the main differences, and a very good difference it is, as it is in the national interest.

SecretFly wrote:...
In a sane reality, Referendums that have the option of Brexit with a Deal Must include a defined Deadline for agreement of a Deal, or else UK theoretically remains in the EU indefinitely whilst Deal negotiations go on indefinitely.
...

Sane left long ago. This should have been applied at the very least to the previous referendum, or at least lead to a delay in invoking A50 until some practical path could be found. You'd struggle to find any sensible idea or plan about Brexit over the 3 years this farago has been running

SecretFly wrote:Any renewed Referendum that mentioned 'Deal' would have to entail that the voting public had a pretty damn conclusive opinion of what the Deal would be.  Yes?  No?  

Yes of course. We have May's deal.

We don't have BJ's deal because he's made no effort to try to get one, so we only have the one deal available.

McDonnell and Starmer will talk Corbyn out of October.

Simple excuse they can't trust Johnson will suffice.

After all even his brother has no faith in him.

So in short we can't trust anything Corbyn says either, so we have the choice between a lying bigot and a lying anti-semite, wow.

Crime rising....Pensioners scared to go out...Kids being knifed at record rates..and..

100 Cops taken off their normal duties for a Johnson photo shoot and garbled speech..

Great...

Soul Requiem wrote:So in short we can't trust anything Corbyn says either, so we have the choice between a lying bigot and a lying anti-semite, wow.

Why are so childish ???

I know you don't like Corbyn or Labour but do give us a single Anti Semitic thing he has ever said..

I do not and never have had a problem with the Labour party, it has multiple highly capable politicians doing what they believe to be the right thing whether that's Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper or Keir Starmer. I disagree with them but they go about things in tactful and competent manner, they are the main reason why the government are having a hard time of things. The leadership of their party is shambolic and frankly an embarrassment to a party led in the past by MacDonald, Attlee, Smith and Gaitskell.

You can think Labour are a shambles...I think they are only the best of two bad choices..

It is just the juvenile antisemite name calling that bores..

Amongst others Bernie Sanders...The esteemed Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein and the Jewish author Michael Rosen are all friends of Corbyn and think it is a disgrace this AS smear campaign..

Like others they keep asking low rent types to give evidence an anti racist campaigner is a racist..

I would prefer Starmer..Thornberry...Rayner to be leader sure.

But it isn't happening.

There have been very troubling anti-Semitic goings on in Labour, and Corbyn has done very little to discipline or prevent it. That doesn't prove he himself is anti-Semitic - he could just be a bad leader - but it is an issue within the party.

I agree he should have been more proactive but antisemitism is prevalent in all Parties..Labour has 400,000 more members than anyone else so there will be more cases..

Think Corbyn is a crap leader....But I wasn't debating that...

Plenty wrong with Corbyn but racist isn't proven unlike with Claudius..

Anyway ICM interesting polls out..

GE in October...

Con 37
Lab 30

GE in November..

Lab 28
Con 28

Don't screw it up Corbyn....Do it in November..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I agree he should have been more proactive but antisemitism is prevalent in all Parties..Labour has 400,000 more members than anyone else so there will be more cases..

Think Corbyn is a crap leader....But I wasn't debating that...

Plenty wrong with Corbyn but racist isn't proven unlike with Claudius..

Agreed

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
Anyway ICM interesting polls out..

GE in October...

Con 37
Lab 30

GE in November..

Lab 28
Con 28

Don't screw it up Corbyn....Do it in November..

Interesting, can you link this? Want to see how they worded that.

Labour can't defend their policy position on both renegotiating and supporting Leave in the referendum.
They should frame it as such:
-Cameron called a ref, and didn't have a good plan for what would happen if Brexit won. Thus the country suffered.
-Thus the responsible thing for any government to do is ensure they renegotiate and get the best possible deal for the UK, and put that against Remain.

It Must Be Love wrote:Labour can't defend their policy position on both renegotiating and supporting Leave in the referendum.
They should frame it as such:
-Cameron called a ref, and didn't have a good plan for what would happen if Brexit won. Thus the country suffered.
-Thus the responsible thing for any government to do is ensure they renegotiate and get the best possible deal for the UK, and put that against Remain.

This is what May did. It was a crap deal, but nobody is going to do better, and no deal will be as good as what we have now.

To be fair, it must be bloody hard for Johnson at the moment. You've wanted this gig your whole life. You've been brought up thinking that you're entitled to it, that you'll be Churchillian.

Then when you get there, you find out that the bluster, lies and entitlement that brought you all the way here simply doesn't wash at this level.

May must be absolutely loving this.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Any renewed Referendum that mentioned 'Deal' would have to entail that the voting public had a pretty damn conclusive opinion of what the Deal would be.  Yes?  No?  

Yes of course. We have May's deal.

We don't have BJ's deal because he's made no effort to try to get one, so we only have the one deal available.

Speaking of Theres May's deal, Michael Gove said yesterday in committee that he'd vote for it if it was brought back to the Commons.

Quite how that squares with his serving in a government that insists the backstop contained in said deal has to go is anyone's guess.

Pr4wn wrote:To be fair, it must be bloody hard for Johnson at the moment. You've wanted this gig your whole life. You've been brought up thinking that you're entitled to it, that you'll be Churchillian.

Then when you get there, you find out that the bluster, lies and entitlement that brought you all the way here simply doesn't wash at this level.

May must be absolutely loving this.

Not sure she's enjoying what's happening to her party, but I know what you mean; imagine she's 'enjoying' Johnson reaping what he's sown. Her and Ken Clarke spotted having a giggle together yesterday weren't they? Penny for your thoughts, Theresa...

As for Johnson, everyone apart from him appears to know that more substance is required when actually leading, instead of simply carping and sniping from the sidelines.

I swear the Conservatives, both MPs and party members, must have elected Johnson leader based on other people's accounts of him.

Where's the magnetism? Where's the soaring oratory?

All I see is a posh boy dying on his @rse.

Sir Michael Fallon on the risk Johnson is taking:


Former Defence Secretary Sir Michael said the vote on the bill was "a matter of confidence" in the government, so removing the whip was the "proper process".

However, he said he hoped there was "some kind of appeal mechanism that they can find now so that they get the chance to state their case".

Sir Michael said there was a wider issue with the expulsion, though.

"I also worry that it sends the wrong message to Remainers, particularly in my party," he said.

"I think by definition some five million Conservatives must have voted Remain.

"I think we've got to be very careful not to drive them into the hands of Remainer parties like the Liberal Democrats in England, or the Scottish Nationalists in Scotland."

Sir Michael said it was "very important that we take those who voted Remain - and nearly half the country voted Remain - we do try and take them with us."

Asked it if was too late, he said: "I hope it isn't. We have pledged to withdraw in an orderly way, there are seven weeks left to find an agreement and there are important talks taking place.

"There is still time to find a way through this with some sort of compromise agreement, and it is very important that those who voted Remain do feel they are wanted with us on this voyage into a new future."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49605757


Team up with Farage, and those 5 million voters are gone.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for a No Deal Brexit.