The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

Love this

https://twitter.com/Number10cat/stat...67167396585473

[Tom1234]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Love this https://twitter.com/Number10cat/stat...67167396585473

There was a thread about short-legged cats recently. Is that one of those cats?

How sad and frustrating for the cat.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Love this https://twitter.com/Number10cat/stat...67167396585473

Or this. 3 lies in just 9 seconds.

https://twitter.com/Number10cat/stat...04280538877952

[TonyClifton]

I don't see why Boris Johnson should reach conciliatory terms Dinivan, Theresa May attempted to do that and it completely failed. A different tack was needed which is why Boris Johnson was elected by his party. It's also abundantly clear that in the current Parliament, there is no compromise to be had. Parliament has after all rejected all of the following - Theresa May's Deal (3 times), a Customs Union with the EU (twice), Single Market 2.0 (twice), a second referendum (twice), Revoking Article 50 (twice) and a No Deal Brexit. This is why a General Election is needed.

There is also a clear difference in defying the whip over voting against Theresa May's bill and in defying the whip by voting for the Benn Act. By not voting for Theresa May's Bill, MPs were expressing an opinion that had no bearing on the role of government. By defying the whip and voting for the Benn Act, Conservative MPs removed powers from the executive and limited the government in its ability to be able to perform its job. If one does this against their own political party, then they have no business to be representing that party anymore. It is whole reason political parties exist and thus correct that the rebel MPs be suspended from the party.

There is also the political advantage to Boris Johnson that if and when there is a General Election, if he wins this by a slim majority, then he can be sure that it is a real majority and will not have to contend with his MPs defying the whip with votes regarding Brexit.

Finally so that we're clear, Boris Johnson has never had a majority government and nor indeed did Theresa May. Theresa May had a minority government supported through a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. Boris Johnson inherited this situation and then lost the Parliamentary majority when Phillip Lee crossed the floor to the Liberal Democrats immediately after the summer recess, which happened before he'd had the chance to really do anything.

[marton]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	.....so that we're clear, Boris Johnson has never had a majority government .....Boris Johnson inherited this situation and then lost the Parliamentary majority .......

Umm what!

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	Finally so that we're clear, Boris Johnson has never had a majority government and nor indeed did Theresa May. Theresa May had a minority government supported through a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP. Boris Johnson inherited this situation and then lost the Parliamentary majority when Phillip Lee crossed the floor to the Liberal Democrats immediately after the summer recess, which happened before he'd had the chance to really do anything.

Quite apart from the linguistic faux pas, the confidence and supply arrangement means that until Phillip Lee crossed the floor there was indeed a majority government.

See here for example.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	By defying the whip and voting for the Benn Act, Conservative MPs removed powers from the executive and limited the government in its ability to be able to perform its job.

And that is the right of a sovereign parliament. This BS started out with a demand to return powers to a sovereign parliament, but as soon as the sovereign parliament flex its muscles, the first thing we here is who that is not what was wanted after all.

Either you have a sovereign parliament or you don't. There is no option to have a sovereign parliament, but only when it suits the BREXITEERS.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	There is also a clear difference in defying the whip over voting against Theresa May's bill and in defying the whip by voting for the Benn Act. By not voting for Theresa May's Bill, MPs were expressing an opinion that had no bearing on the role of government. By defying the whip and voting for the Benn Act, Conservative MPs removed powers from the executive and limited the government in its ability to be able to perform its job.

Correction.
Defying the Tory whip r.e. the WA had far more severe consequences than voting for the 'Benn Act' in that it prevented the PM from securing the numbers to pass her deal. The latter only temporarily removes one course of action from the table and does absolutely nothing to prevent the PM from negotiationing a new deal, or preventing its passage through the HoC. I'm frankly astounded that you see it as the opposite.

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	There is also the political advantage to Boris Johnson that if and when there is a General Election, if he wins this by a slim majority, then he can be sure that it is a real majority and will not have to contend with his MPs defying the whip with votes regarding Brexit.

Why ever not? MPs are always at liberty to defy the whip.

[Blueangel]

Two useful links for TC...

MPs who have defied the Tory Whip
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-02/...e-losing-whip/

This excellent article explains what actually happened in the Supreme Court last week, and goes a long way to explaining how the British Constitution operates.
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/...week-that-was/

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	TonyClifton
	I don't see why Boris Johnson should reach conciliatory terms Dinivan, Theresa May attempted to do that and it completely failed. A different tack was needed which is why Boris Johnson was elected by his party. It's also abundantly clear that in the current Parliament, there is no compromise to be had. Parliament has after all rejected all of the following - Theresa May's Deal (3 times), a Customs Union with the EU (twice), Single Market 2.0 (twice), a second referendum (twice), Revoking Article 50 (twice) and a No Deal Brexit. This is why a General Election is needed.

But this is all because the Tories have never tried to really bring in the opposition to the discussions on what type of direction the country should take in the next decades. This is surprising unless the conservatives really believe that they will stay in power over all those decades to come.

Why should labour, the libdems or the SNP vote in favour of a deal that they disagree with because they had absolutely no say in the way it was negotiated? Boris could have chosen a conciliatory tactic where he really tried to re-negotiate the deal, this time with the support of the parliament by bringing the opposition fully in.

Instead he has chosen to burn all bridges. This is, I believe, a good tactic if his aim is to win back conservative votes and fight off the Brexit party. But this is a dreadful tactic for the rest of the country. So much for a self-called statesman.

[amogles]

	Quote:	Dinivan
	But this is all because the Tories have never tried to really bring in the opposition to the discussions on what type of direction the country should take in the next decades. This is surprising unless the conservatives really believe that they will stay in power over all those decades to come. Why should labour, the libdems or the SNP vote in favour of a deal that they disagree with because they had absolutely no say in the way it was negotiated? Boris could have chosen a conciliatory tactic where he really tried to re-negotiate the deal, this time with the support of the parliament by bringing the opposition fully in. Instead he has chosen to burn all bridges. This is, I believe, a good tactic if his aim is to win back conservative votes and fight off the Brexit party. But this is a dreadful tactic for the rest of the country. So much for a self-called statesman.

It's a bit difficult to bring the opposition in and have them co-shape the deal if many of them are saying, we don't want to dicuss a deal because we want remain at any price.

I don't recall many MPs coming forward and saying, I am actually remain but will back a deal if this or that.

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	amogles
	It's a bit difficult to bring the opposition in and have them co-shape the deal if many of them are saying, we don't want to dicuss a deal because we want remain at any price. I don't recall many MPs coming forward and saying, I am actually remain but will back a deal if this or that.

There are two dozen labour MPs in leave constituencies willing to reach a deal. Enough of them to be able to get the deal through with their support. A soft Brexit of course, but if that's what most of the country wants then the solution would be more durable

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	amogles
	I don't recall many MPs coming forward and saying, I am actually remain but will back a deal if this or that.

Meet my home town MP, Lisa Nandy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ay-brexit-deal

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Dinivan
	A soft Brexit of course, but if that's what most of the country wants then the solution would be more durable

You mean less bad on short term but awful on the long term.

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	You mean less bad on short term but awful on the long term.

Any type Brexit is awful is in the long term

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	You mean less bad on short term but awful on the long term.

If the UK weren't in such an unnecessary hurry they could negotiate an FTA before actually leaving, assuming the EU is open for one in the first place.

That would avoid disruptions, remove the necessity of a backstop while maintaining open borders, improve plannability (though it's far too late to keep the Japanese car manufacturers from repatriating their production lines) and, if still necessary, give time to adapt production lines and warehouse sizes to avoid potentially lethal frictions.

Not to speak of roadwork, waiting and parking room for lorries, customes processing capacities, etc etc pp.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	If the UK weren't in such an unnecessary hurry they could negotiate an FTA before actually leaving, assuming the EU is open for one in the first place.

France, Germany & Spain will be in deep shit with no deal, by leaving with no deal you put the ball in their court. A50 states 2 years so no unnecessary hurry at all, the Uk did not choose 2 years as the time frame.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	If the UK weren't in such an unnecessary hurry they could negotiate an FTA before actually leaving, assuming the EU is open for one in the first place.

Revoke A50 and tell the PM that he can only invoke it again AFTER he's built, equipped and fully staffed 40 new hospitals, put an extra 20k police on the streets and substantially increased funding for every school in the country.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	France, Germany & Spain will be in deep shit with no deal, by leaving with no deal you put the ball in their court. A50 states 2 years so no unnecessary hurry at all, the Uk did not choose 2 years as the time frame.

Some people just have not learned anything from the past three years.... so lets spell it out again - nobody is going to risk the rest of the market for the sake of the UK.

If one followed BREXITEER logic: if a country such as Ireland were to be willing to capitulate for the 16% of it's trade (the member most impacted), then the UK with 48% of it trade exposed should have no problem at all capitulating, not to mention that they will be fully trading on WTO terms. But no, they believe the UK can take the hammering, but the EU will not....

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	But no, they believe the UK can take the hammering, but the EU will not....

You're wrong here: both can't take it. The difference is that the UK action would be a yolo action and would be harming itself mainly, whereas EU leadership would have to explain it to all its member countries and citizens.