[Politics] Brexit

[abc]

You can't do that though, another vote is undemocratic.

So are we at a complete irresolvable stalemate?

Leavers want to leave but Parliament wont vote for the deal and wont allow no deal

Remainers want a referendum but Parliament wont vote for one

Many of both groups want an election but Parliament wont agree to one.

So what happens now? Completely alludes me!

 

[clapham_gull]

The enemies of Brexit prevented it being delivered sooner? You mean like Boris Johnson & JRM who voted against Theresa May's deal more than once because it wasn't Brexicity enough for them.
Theresa May threw away her majority in the HOC with an election, but even bribing the DUP wasn't enough to get her deal done due to the ERG, who are all LEAVERS.

Let's look at the successive tactical stupidity of the Tories over this.

1) Cameron calling a referendum to try and silence the frothing at the mouth right wing of the party. No leader has been able to do post Thatcher. It's either seem them out of power or on the opposition benches.

2) Cameron not keeping Johnson on a tight leash like Thatcher did with Jeffrey Archer. The members will always go for a populist clown if given the chance.

3) Theresa May calling an election and simply introducing the split in the country into parliament.

4) Johnson deciding to remove the whip from 21 MPs and destroying his majority.

5) Johnson claiming to make the EU "compromise" when all he has come back with is re-heated deal that 1) The EU always wanted 2) May threw out because she knew it would alienate the DUP.

6) He alienates the DUP.

7) His power is so damaged internally, Rabb, Pritel and Mogg have him by the knackers with their de-regulation plans. Successfully moving them out of the Withdrawal Agreement.

If the Tories are so hell bent on a deal the "brings people together" they couldn't have made more of a hash of it.

Admit it Brexiteers, they are rubbish.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's not hard to see that Leave was so ill defined it meant at least 8 different things to people who voted for it. Literally no-one will be happy with Johnson's deal. It satisfies almost none of the promises made in the campaign.

no withdrawal agreement can deliver the promises of the campaign, as it is not setting out the future relationship, only the terms of leaving. then we can negotitate whatever trade arrangments we can agree with the EU. every possible leave option requires us to leave then negotitate, that is the process. unless we remain, which the politicans dont have the stomach to vote for.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes you did. Why would you correct me by telling me that the Cabinet are not the only ones would can propose legislation?

Read my post again. Jesus, you can't even bring yourself to say, "oh yeah, sorry my mistake". Bloody hell.












Yes you did.

Firstly I am not called Jesus, and secondly there is a difference between legislation and policies.

 

[abc]

Let's look at the successive tactical stupidity of the Tories over this.

1) Cameron calling a referendum to try and silence the frothing at the mouth right wing of the party. No leader has been able to do post Thatcher. It's either seem them out of power or on the opposition benches.

2) Cameron not keeping Johnson on a tight leash like Thatcher did with Jeffrey Archer. The members will always go for a populist clown if given the chance.

3) Theresa May calling an election and simply introducing the split in the country into parliament.

4) Johnson deciding to remove the whip from 21 MPs and destroying his majority.

5) Johnson claiming to make the EU "compromise" when all he has come back with is re-heated deal that 1) The EU always wanted 2) May threw out because she knew it would alienate the DUP.

6) He alienates the DUP.

7) His power is so damaged internally, Rabb, Pritel and Mogg have him by the knackers with their de-regulation plans. Successfully moving them out of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Let's look at the successive tactical stupidity of Labour over this.

1. Referendum: Corbyn sits on the fence and refuses to whole heartedly back remain. If he had done so the result might ell have been different
5
2. Negotiating a deal: Labour say TM has to pass a series of tests with any deal that are impossible to achieve, including that 'we will be no worse off by leaving the EU'

3. We have a deal that means not leaving with no deal: Labour oppose

4. Tories call for an election. Labour oppose and refuse to have one (despite calling for one every day for the past three years)

5. Labour still refuse to take a clear position on Brexit saying they will only decide after they have won an election that they refuse to have.

6. Labour demand an extension and support the Benn Act to avoid a no deal. But when a deal is agreed they vote against it which makes the possibility of no deal more likely

7. Labour will still not support an election but now demand a referendum that cannot mathematically happen without an election.

Just saying the Tories and Labour are just as bad and incomptenant

 

[clapham_gull]

Just saying the Tories and Labour are just as bad and incomptenant

Nope, Labour aren't in power, the Tories are. If Theresa May hadn't called an election and the members voted a clown in, we'd be out by now.

Why do we talk of "Parliament" as if it's a dysfunctional coalition of Tories, Labour, Lib-Dems, the DUP and SNP ?

Because the Tories made it so. Since day one they have eaten themselves away.

Blame everyone else if you like, you are wrong.

 

[dingodan]

Firstly I am not called Jesus, and secondly there is a difference between legislation and policies.

What?

"A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy

Policy = Intention (we propose to do X)

Legislation = Implimentation (passing a law to do X)

All I am doing is rightly arguing that in the EU the people who propose (move) legislation (i.e. the people who write the laws) are not accountable to an electorate, they are not voted in by the people who have to live under the laws, and they can't be removed by them either.

That is just the truth. If you are Ok with that, just say so, but at least be honest. I am personally not comfortable with that, I prefer lawmakers to be answerable to the people through the ballot box.

If you feel uncomfortable being straight forward about the fact that you are defending a system of lawmaking without proper accountability maybe you should think about whether you really even do support that system, or whether you are just so entrenched in your position that you refuse to acknowledge the legitimate arguments against it.

 

[vegster]

A good start would be getting them all to turn up for work.

It's always been tough to take an anti EU, beaurocrat, stance from a man balls deep in the trough, the very epitome of stealing a living.

When we neared the first deadline for leaving the EU the EU parliament hosted a meeting where the UK MEP's were told what their closing pension arrangements were and what relocation grants they were to receive. Apparently more UKIP MEP's turned up than for any other previous meeting !

 

[vegster]

Let's look at the successive tactical stupidity of Labour over this.

1. Referendum: Corbyn sits on the fence and refuses to whole heartedly back remain. If he had done so the result might ell have been different
5
2. Negotiating a deal: Labour say TM has to pass a series of tests with any deal that are impossible to achieve, including that 'we will be no worse off by leaving the EU'

3. We have a deal that means not leaving with no deal: Labour oppose

4. Tories call for an election. Labour oppose and refuse to have one (despite calling for one every day for the past three years)

5. Labour still refuse to take a clear position on Brexit saying they will only decide after they have won an election that they refuse to have.

6. Labour demand an extension and support the Benn Act to avoid a no deal. But when a deal is agreed they vote against it which makes the possibility of no deal more likely

7. Labour will still not support an election but now demand a referendum that cannot mathematically happen without an election.

Just saying the Tories and Labour are just as bad and incomptenant

Labour have just sat back, pointed out the pitfalls in the various deals then watched the Tories destroy themselves.

 

[Bodian]

So are we at a complete irresolvable stalemate?

Leavers want to leave but Parliament wont vote for the deal and wont allow no deal

Remainers want a referendum but Parliament wont vote for one

Many of both groups want an election but Parliament wont agree to one.

So what happens now? Completely alludes me!

I think Parliament would vote for one if it is attached as a confirmatory vote to the current deal. The support for Johnson's deal is actually near enough there - the Letwin amendment got through on the back of some Tories (like Letwin himself) who would actually vote for the deal. Some Labour MPs who supported the amendment will also vote for the deal when (if) it comes round again.

Some other wavering MPs who can't bring themselves to vote for Johnson's deal would do so if there was a confirmatory vote attached (I'm thinking of the likes of Soubry) - because it would pass the ultimate responsibility to the public.

And it needs to happen before a GE, because a GE should not just be about Brexit, which it would be if held now. Get a final decision on Brexit - then have a GE to elect a Government to see through the next stage of negotiations (if the public vote for the deal).

 

[dingodan]

I think Parliament would vote for one if it is attached as a confirmatory vote to the current deal. The support for Johnson's deal is actually near enough there - the Letwin amendment got through on the back of some Tories (like Letwin himself) who would actually vote for the deal. Some Labour MPs who supported the amendment will also vote for the deal when (if) it comes round again.

Some other wavering MPs who can't bring themselves to vote for Johnson's deal would do so if there was a confirmatory vote attached (I'm thinking of the likes of Soubry) - because it would pass the ultimate responsibility to the public.

And it needs to happen before a GE, because a GE should not just be about Brexit, which it would be if held now. Get a final decision on Brexit - then have a GE to elect a Government to see through the next stage of negotiations (if the public vote for the deal).

I expect that the deal has sufficient support without such an amendment, and I suspect that the amendment itself wouldn't get a majority. If an amendment like that did pass I think the government would pull the bill and call an immediate General Election, and since we will be able to get an extension now the opposition parties cannot realistically say no.

 

[Driver8]

I expect that the deal has sufficient support without such an amendment, and I suspect that the amendment itself wouldn't get a majority. If an amendment like that did pass I think the government would pull the bill and call an immediate General Election, and since we will be able to get an extension now the opposition parties cannot realistically say no.

They can’t call a General Election.

 

[dingodan]

They can’t call a General Election.

Sorry, I mean they will move a bill to propose a General Election.

The answer has so far been "Get an extension, then we will agree to an election".

So we will have a GE.

This Gov't will never let the WA bill go through with a second ref attached, even if the HoC approved an amendment for one, which I'm not convinced they would.

 

[Bodian]

I expect that the deal has sufficient support without such an amendment, and I suspect that the amendment itself wouldn't get a majority. If an amendment like that did pass I think the government would pull the bill and call an immediate General Election, and since we will be able to get an extension now the opposition parties cannot realistically say no.

It possibly does have sufficient support without an amendment, and have near enough said that in my post. But my main point was in relation to [MENTION=5724]abc[/MENTION] 's comment that Parliament wouldn't vote for an amendment. I think they will now.

Why do you think such an amendment wouldn't get a majority? Remember, the amendment gets voted on before the bill itself. If it was clear to all that the substantive bill would be likely to pass anyway, then many who don't really want Brexit, or this deal, may vote for the amendment on the basis that it avoids the final decision and hands it back to the public to decide. If I were a wavering Labour MP, then I would do just that.

I'm not sure the Government can actually unilaterally pull the bill once it's being debated - because the Motion has to be read out by the speaker. Only if no-one says 'aye' to it being moved, will it be dropped (which is what happened yesterday). It would only take one voice to speak up, and then there would have to be a vote.

 

[Bodian]

Sorry, I mean they will move a bill to propose a General Election.

The answer has so far been "Get an extension, then we will agree to an election".

So we will have a GE.

This Gov't will never let the WA bill go through with a second ref attached, even if the HoC approved an amendment for one, which I'm not convinced they would.

Out of interest - why not? Surely, if the Government are convinced it's such a good deal, they'll be quite happy for it to go to a confirmatory vote? If they basically say 'right, you've agreed the deal but we're not going to let it go through because you want the public to have a say', that really is defeating democracy.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't think I can face 5 weeks of these chancers campaigning for a GE. Much as I'd like to see the Lib Dems win a majority I don't think that's going to happen, in which case it's Old Labour vs Old UKIP. Depressing.

 

[dingodan]

Out of interest - why not? Surely, if the Government are convinced it's such a good deal, they'll be quite happy for it to go to a confirmatory vote?

I keep hearing this kind of argument.

People voted to leave. If you don't leave but instead go back and ask them again, it undermines the trust people put in the vote in the first place.

It has nothing to do with whether they would expect to win the vote or not, it has to do with the principle of honoring a promise they all made, and not going back on it.

That includes Labour.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think Parliament would vote for one if it is attached as a confirmatory vote to the current deal. The support for Johnson's deal is actually near enough there - the Letwin amendment got through on the back of some Tories (like Letwin himself) who would actually vote for the deal. Some Labour MPs who supported the amendment will also vote for the deal when (if) it comes round again.

Some other wavering MPs who can't bring themselves to vote for Johnson's deal would do so if there was a confirmatory vote attached (I'm thinking of the likes of Soubry) - because it would pass the ultimate responsibility to the public.

And it needs to happen before a GE, because a GE should not just be about Brexit, which it would be if held now. Get a final decision on Brexit - then have a GE to elect a Government to see through the next stage of negotiations (if the public vote for the deal).

think a referendum amendment may be the practical way forward.

 

[Bodian]

I keep hearing this kind of argument.

People voted to leave. If you don't leave but instead go back and ask them again, it undermines the trust people put in the vote in the first place.

It has nothing to do with whether they would expect to win the vote or not, it has to do with the principle of honoring a promise they all made, and not going back on it.

That includes Labour.

This has been gone through on this thread before though, with various amusing analogies. If the situation has changed, and more information is available - then it is a new question, and worth asking about. The house survey analogy was my favourite in that if you agree to buy a house, but then the survey says it's falling down, you don't still just press on with the purchase because you had said you would.

 

[clapham_gull]

Labour have just sat back, pointed out the pitfalls in the various deals then watched the Tories destroy themselves.

Exactly. Brexiteers are in complete denial about:

1) The DUP
2) Farage absolutely hating this deal.
3) Tory MPs being thrown out the party irrespective of the fact they voted for a deal time and time again.
4) This deal being WORSE than May's and re-hash of one that the ERG hated even more.
5) The break up of the Union.
6) The incompetence of their beloved leader who is currently under investigation regarding his time as Mayor and goes back on his word time and time again.