So, to sum up. . .
we had a lying, cheating referendum campaign and now we have parliament unconstitutionally shut down to 'restore the sovereignty of parliament' that had never been lost . . . until now.
I've got nothing.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson moves to shut Parliament
UK PM Boris Johnson will attempt to close Parliament in order to push through a no-deal Brexit without interference from pesky voters' representatives in the form of MPs. The dickish controversial move will likely be hard fought by backbench Members of Parliament next week. The idea is that when MPs return from holiday on …
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Worth looking up Mr. Speaker Lenthall.
John Bercow standing up for the Parliament against Benito Jonsolini is an appealing prospect. Bercow is the son of a taxi driver and Jewish, and the way he has stared down the snobbish anti-Semites in his own party has been impressive. If he can outstare the greedy, overprivileged serial liar and adulterer who his fellow OEs have made PM, maybe he'll get as big an entry in whatever version of Wikipedia they have in three and a half centuries.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:06 GMT unimaginative
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The Guardian and others drag out things Johnson said long ago and puts them out of context (either that, or they are too stupid to understand satire).
Its funny how doing something entirely constitutional to honour the biggest vote for anything ever in British history is tyrannical, whereas ignoring precedent and the duty of a speaker not to be partisan is fine.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 05:34 GMT Yes Me
Re: So, to sum up. . .
> drag out things Johnson said long ago
Yes, because he has been telling outrageous lies about the EC and the EU throughout his career.
> something entirely constitutional to honour the biggest vote for anything ever
As the population has been constantly increasing, more voters than ever is irrelevant. What is relevant is that only 37% of those voters voted for a change and they did it based on outrageous lies from Johnson and his rich, privileged friends. BTW it was not a decisive vote, it was only advisory; constitutionally sovereign power remains with Parliament. If anyone has behaved unconstitutionally, it is Johnson and his cronies, who must have put undue pressure on a 93 year old person in the process. She should have said no, which is certainly her constitutional prerogative.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 14:02 GMT hoola
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Sorry, you are wrong & this is the mistake that many make. The only numbers that count in any electoral process or referendum are of those that actually voted. All too often this figure of only 37% is banded around. That is 37% of those that were eligible to vote. The assumption that everyone makes is that all those who did not vote would automatically have voted to remain. There is nothing to support this and it is an irrelevance.
The turnout was a record 72%, of those who voted 51.9% voted to leave and 48.1 voted to remain. In accordance with the votes cast that is a majority for the 51.9% or a vote to leave. Any one who was not eligible to vote or chose not to vote has not had any influence on the decision. If people feet that strongly about the result, particularly if it did not have the outcome they wanted then they should have voted.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 20:39 GMT DaveWatts
Re: So, to sum up. . .
It wasn't quite "a record turnout of 72%" was it? I mean a quick look at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections) shows that since 72% hasn't been a record LOW turnout since Tony Blair's time. Between the second world war and Tony Blair's election in 1997, yes, 72% was a record LOW turnout matched by that which elected Edward Heath in 1970, with the average for the period being 76.6% and the highest being 83.9%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Verhofstadt is Belgian. They don't have Reichsmarschalls. Or even "Reichmarshals". They have in the past had a little trouble with the people who do, which is why they tend to care about the unity of Europe.
Brexiter can't tell Belgium from Germany or spell foreign words. Figures.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
It isn't counterproductive; it keeps my blood pressure under control. If I have to share a country with these people - and I've probably brought in more export income and paid more taxes than most of them - I at least feel I deserve to laugh at them. "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'T is that I may not weep;" - Byron.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Nope. It's his country as much as yours. He's entitled to think what the fuck he likes about it and under no obligation to agree with- or have any respect for- people such as yourself in order to retain the right to live in *his own fucking country*. Regardless of what you think.
Don't like that? Good. You're just as entitled to stay too, and to grind your teeth to stumps in frustration that it is (at present) a free country.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
We haven't been a "free" country ever - from the poor being tortured by the state even when victims or witnesses to crime as "they can't ne truthful" to Peterloo, to ever expanding laws governing what we can say, do, read, listen to (listening to Lord Haw Haw as many did for a laugh in WW2 now would land you in jail given the "look at what we deem 'terrorist propaganda' even just once and its a serious criminal matter") and eat / drink.
And its all done under the banner of "safety, security, child protection, anti terrorism, climate emergency" etc
I wholly disagree with Johnson proroguing parliament though, no better than Stephen Harper in Canada, who prorogued Parliament no less than THREE times to avoid no confidence votes.....and acted like said votes were illegitimate and undemocratic, I was wholly surprised he voluntarily stood down tbh...
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
It's always the same with Brexiteers - it's "our" country, you go away if you don't like the mess we've created.
I've lived here since birth with the odd period abroad, I've always paid UK taxes, I've created jobs with things I designed, gained export earnings, supported UK interests in the odd international body. My family can trace itself back in this country to at least the 1400s. My children are all gainfully employed. I have never claimed unemployment benefit or sick leave. I have never been convicted of a criminal offence. I don't avoid taxes.
Why should I be the one to leave? What have you contributed that you deserve not only to stay but to determine who should be allowed to live here? Do tell us.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 07:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Well if you don't like living here with people like me you can fuck off ..."
Or and this is by far easier, we could make your every waking moment a glorious monument to man's unparalleled ingenuity in the field of inflicting pain on one's fellows.
You'll read nothing but political promises, hear nothing but the grime remix of greensleeves, every packet leaving any of your devices, subject to random jitter, as we route you through advert supported VPN services run by bored children.
Your mother's basement will be designated a place of outstanding natural freedom from micro-aggressions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Godwin's Law implies no winners or losers. Read what the man himself has to say on the subject. It's just a law about asymptotes: As [length of thread] -> ∞, P[something will be compared to Nazis] -> 1.
However such comparisons can be valid or invalid. Comparing Goebbels to Rees-Mogg would be incorrect because Goebbels didn't run offshore funds and wasn't a fan of the Pope. Comparing Arron Banks to Thyssen because Thyssen backed Hitler and Banks backed Farage might be valid depending on the point being made.
Referring to Reichsmarshall Verhofstadt is invalid simply because Verhofstadt is nothing at all like Hermann Goering except at the most basic biological level.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:54 GMT jake
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Is there a corollary, to wit "The odds against anybody invoking Godwin in any given Internet forum actually having read and understood Godwin's Law approaches 1."? If not, there should be ...
Wiki "Godwin's Law" before using his commentary. Mike thanks you.
"Verhofstadt is nothing at all like Hermann Goering except at the most basic biological level."
Wait ... are you suggesting that poor old Verhofstadt has no balls at all?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:19 GMT Chronos
Re: Benito Jonsolini
That was Goebbels, surely? Apparently, Goering had two but very small.
What's interesting (in the Chinese proverb sense) here is that the system is unravelling. They (whoever they are) have polarised the people of this country and divided the nation. Once we realise we're, all of us, Brexiteer and Remainer, in the same sodding boat of having some bugger else decide our fate and that every single one of the denizens of both parliaments have let us down catastrophically, then perhaps we'll also see how we've been manipulated and redirect the ire to where it really should have been flowing in the first place.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Rupert Murdoch. See the study about how the boycott of The Sun comic on Merseyside contributed to their pro-Remain vote.
According to some, Murdoch has never forgiven the people at Oxford for not treating him as being a VIP and has wanted to get back at the Establishment ever since. (Blair spent some of his formative years in Australia and did a non-Oxford accent, which worked). He has certainly succeeded.
I cannot find it in me to blame the MPs, especially the women, who did not want to end up like poor Jo Cox.
-
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Because we are all skint frankly and stuck in zero hours contracts with fire at will policies, backed up by a "welfare" system that would bar any support in retaliation.
There's also the matter that likely up to half the country will swallow this to get Brexit - ends justifying the means in their eyes.
People are also wary of who is pushing this, for fear of giving credence to a movement they don't agree with / creating another XR monster that runs out of control (even to those directly involved).
Plus for many whats the alternative to Johnson - Corbyn? Many don't want to go back to one state electricty supplier, they don't want ID cards shoved down their necks again
Swinson - So Tory-lite - Voted for Universal Credit, PIP and every single coalition cut no matter how severe or unreasonable and downright harmful to society
The opposition are nowhere near unified enough yet, and all think they can do this on their own.
If they were serious, they would agree a caretaker government comprised of Corbyn as prime minister, Swinson and Ian Blackford as joint deputy PM, Grieve as attorney general and only for as long as necessary to sort this stramash out properly....
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 23:56 GMT jake
Re: Benito Jonsolini
Goebbels. I stand corrected. Apologies, this Yank hadn't heard the ditty since roughly the sixth form in Yorkshire, ::mumble:: years ago.
And yes. Same here in the US ... As Walt Kelly wrote so succinctly "We have met the enemy, and he is us".
Now how the hell do we get out of the mess we've allowed to happen? One thing's for sure, if we don't all hang together we'll all hang separately ...
Pogo says: If you can't vote my way, vote anyway, but VOTE!
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:02 GMT unimaginative
Re: Benito Jonsolini
As we are talking abou Goebels and Goering, here are some quotes:
“In my view a nation’s conception of its own freedom must be harmonised with present-day facts and simple questions of efficiency and purpose… Our only requirement of European states is that they be sincere and enthusiastic members of Europe.”
Joseph Goebbels
“The solution to economic problems… with the eventual object of a European customs union and a free European market, a European clearing system and stable exchange rates in Europe, looking towards a European currency union.”
Hermann Göring
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:34 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: Benito Jonsolini
I see your attempt at drawing a parallel between the EU and the Nazis by using some unrelated quotes, and I raise you a paragraph from the founding document of the European Coal and Steel Community, the precursor organization to the EU:
"...these proposals will bring to reality the first solid groundwork for a European Federation vital to the preservation of world peace."
and
"... our joint action will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not only unthinkable but materially impossible."
Unfortunately for your attempt at revisionism, the EU was the first multinational organisation founded for the explicit purpose of preventing war in Europe. Hardly surprising, as it came immediately after the death of some 70 million people. But hey, that was 80 years ago so I'm sure any lessons we learned can be safely forgotten.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 16:39 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: Benito Jonsolini
"the EU was the first multinational organisation founded for the explicit purpose of preventing war in Europe"
Really? What about the Congress of Vienna, or the League of Nations? (Or does the LoN doesn't count because they were trying to prevent war worldwide, following a European War?)
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:54 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: Benito Jonsolini @EvilDrSmith
OK, "purpose" may be a bit strong. But while the LoN had similar goals, it didn't achieve them. Where the EU (or it's precursor, rather) stood out was identifying that there was more to preventing war than just joining an organisation; the focus on an economic interdependence was the difference, hence the "not merely unthinkable but materially impossible" quote from Schuman. Because lets face it, by 1945, the unthinkable had already happened.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 14:17 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: Benito Jonsolini @EvilDrSmith
I see your point, but think you give too much credit to the EU and it's precursors, while ignoring the biggest contribution to peace in Europe being the Cold war and the US + NATO glaring at the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact who in turn are glaring back, with both sides threatened to lob nuclear warheads at each other to the severe detriment of the entirety of the continent of Europe.
It could as well be argued that the formation and continued existence of what has become the EU is not the cause of peace in Europe, but the result of peace in Europe.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 18:49 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: Benito Jonsolini
The sentiment is far older. In the opening months of WW1, after it became clear that it wasn't going to be over by Christmas and several hundred thousand people had died in as many months, there were still people arguing about a political settlement. The basis of the settlement as proposed by the Germans was basically a return to pre-war borders but with a customs union to stop the half-dozen different empires from trying to screw each other over on trade. The proposal was rejected by the British and French who thought they had suffered too much in the opening months to just pack up and go home. Naturally, Fate decreed that the eventual outcome, several decades and many millions later, was a customs union.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 14:05 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: Benito Jonsolini
It's been quite a while since I read about the issues and proposals in the pre- and early war years of The Great War, but I seem to recall the proposed customs union was Germany's idea of converting Belgium and Holland into vassal states serving Germany's economic interest. Britain and France weren't to be part of it (nor the Russian Empire). Austro-Hungary was to be increasingly subservient to Germany.
Most of central Europe was, of course, at that time part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (largely against the wishes of the populace, and thus quite rebellious), so would have formed part of the German Customs Union (whether the population liked it or not), while Poland was divided between Germany, AH and the Russian Empire (and the Poles were unhappy about it), so 2/3 of Poland would have been included (again, irrespective of the population's wishes).
The Baltic States and Finland were part of the Russian Empire (and their population unhappy about it), but wouldn't have been part of Germany's domain.
I know that some feel that the EEC/EC/EU was/is designed to enable Germany to economically dominate, but I'm not sure that implying the EU mimics what Germany intended for Europe in 1915 is entirely accurate.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 05:58 GMT seven of five
Re: Benito Jonsolini
> Is there a corollary, to wit "The odds against anybody invoking Godwin in any given Internet forum
> actually having read and understood Godwin's Law approaches 1."? If not, there should be ..
Chameus’ Addition
Alas, I might go free due to the language barrier (and the resulting interpretational wiggle room) I explained one level up. Then again, probably not. *shrug*
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 05:55 GMT seven of five
lost in translation
Impressive. Goodwin´s law translates slightly different in german [1], where it is more like "sooner or later someone [...], thus ending the discussion"[2]. The latter part led me to suspect an end to the discussion by calling "you lose".
TIL.
[1] do germans get extra leverage for interpretation here, I mean, they kind of invented it? Indirectly...
[2] It also "works" that way over here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:40 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Never met him. But judging him on his actions alone, he appears to be trying to ensure parliament is able to do the job we pay them to do, and that's it's done one way or another since about 1680-ish. Hard to disagree with him on that, surely?
(I would add that people that the desire to become an MP usually makes you unsuitable for the position, so he's in good company)
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"the BoJo government and trying to prevent democracy!"
Kuenssberg's been doing the "prevent democracy" thing in the BBC for ages.
In the last few days, it emerges that the 'news' editor on Guido Fawkes blog is to join Jacob Rees Mogg's team as a special advisor.
That's the Jacob Rees Mogg that Johnson appointed as top dog (Lord President of the Council) in the Privy Council a month ago.
The Privy Council that just met to approve the dissolution of Parliament
https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Orders-Approved.pdf
You really couldn't make it up.
Brexit means what? [edit: Taking back control? Never mind Brussels, how about taking back control from the disconnected-from-reality Eton+Oxford morons (Johnson, Rees Mogg, and many many more) who are currently running/ruining the UK?]
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 09:51 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The representatives in "representative democracy" didn't, and haven't.
There's a pretty clear reason we elect representatives, and that is so that they can work full time to properly understand the issues and weigh up what is best for the country, their constituents, and their party, supposedly in that order. "Direct democracy", otherwise known as mob rule, doesn't work, which is why referendums have no more legal standing than opinion polls, which is essentially what they are. it is also why they are not permitted in countries which have previously been screwed over by their misapplication (see also: German politics in the 1930s)
No country runs by mob rule, it only ever worked in societies that were small enough so that everyone knows everyone else, such as ancient city states. If you're advocating that, then you either don't understand what you are saying, or are wilfully misrepresenting the nature of modern democracy through snidey glib comments on internet forums. I suspect the latter.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 19:01 GMT Ken Hagan
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The demos haven't been asked yet. The 2016 vote was between status quo and something else, where the something else wasn't specified but the leave campaigners made it perfectly clear that they thought "no deal" was definitely not on the cards.
Given how easy it would be to organise a 3-way STV vote on the only 3 available options, the fact that neither we nor MPs have been offered the chance yet is ... telling.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 10:21 GMT codejunky
Re: So, to sum up. . .
@Ken Hagan
"The 2016 vote was between status quo and something else"
Not even close. The EU isnt the status quo, it was in such dire shape and still is that it requires change to survive. Amusingly arguments to remain were not harmonious but some saying its just great and others saying we need to stay to reform.
"but the leave campaigners made it perfectly clear that they thought "no deal" was definitely not on the cards."
Except for the actual question being asked and all the campaigning at least I saw. Yes we want a deal but leaving the EU is pretty much a Ronseal statement.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 21:41 GMT John Smith 19
"The Demos, the demo in democracy have said leave."
After Dominic Cummings spoon fed them massive doses of BS through social media.
That's not a marketing campaign.
That's a "Tell whatever lie we have to to anybody we have to to get their vote" campaign.
There are reasons why normal people don't do this.
But psychopaths don't understand what they mean.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 21:47 GMT John Smith 19
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Brexit is supposed to be about the HoC "re-asserting" its sovereignty.
Except when it actually asks to assert it's sovereignty.
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about how much you can trust this bunch of greedy, delusional (or greedy and delusional) chancers who've pushed for this bu***hit, starting from the days of William "dirty" Cash and ending with the fu**wit Cameron's "cunning plan" to bring about unity within the Conservative Party within his premiership.
Fu**ing retard.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:20 GMT Vincent Ballard
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The job of the Speaker is also to defend the House's privileges against the executive. The reason behind the theatre piece of dragging a newly elected Speaker to the chair is that back in the chair a number of them parted company with their heads shortly before dying.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 07:07 GMT elaar
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Not to side with one side or the other"
He's not taking sides, he wants Parliament to be able to scrutinise the government (the whole cornerstone of our democracy), he's siding with all MPs and all of the people of the UK who expect our Parliamentary Democracy to function (which I would expect to be the entire population, but it seems most Brexiters have been brainwashed into thinking shutting off our Democracy for a while is perfectly fine).
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:15 GMT YARR
ParLIARment have had three years to debate Brexit and have failed to agree a workable solution for the electorate's choice. It's time to clear their schedule, work the problem, make preparations, and discuss backstop alternatives with the EU etc. A temporary dictat that you can only speak if you have something constructive to say wouldn't go amiss.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 05:43 GMT CliveS
"ParLIARment have had three years to debate Brexit"
They debated the referendum as part of the 2015 Queen's Speech and the European Union Referendum Act[ in December 2015. But that was the enabling legislation, rather than the nature of Brexit after the referendum result was declared.
In terms of debating Brexit, it wasn't until December 2016 that Parliament debated the invoking of Article 50, the bill to support this receiving Royal Assent in March 2017. At that point Parliament, business and representatives of various sectors (health, business, agriculture, etc) should have all been engaged in the process of drawing up what was wanted from a deal, and what would be the minimum acceptable position. Instead one T. May, former Conservative Prime Minister decided to do her way. Parliament didn't get to participate until she brought her negotiated deal to the House late in 2018. So Parliament was effectively excluded from the process for the best part of two years. And now Johnson is trying to shut Parliament out again.
The failure has been on the part of David Cameron who used the referendum to try and resolve decades old divisions in his party and sideline the UKIP threat with no consideration of the possibility of losing. And on the part of Theresa May who took a majority in the House, threw it away and still persisted in ignoring the opportunities to find a national consensus. And now we have Boris Johnson trying to further marginalise Parliament.
We are in the current mess because of the ongoing failure of consecutive Conservative Prime Ministers. Point the finger of blame and opprobrium at the Tory Party before you cast blame upon Parliament.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 07:13 GMT elaar
"ParLIARment have had three years to debate Brexit and have failed"
Why do you think Parliament has failed? The Tories wasted years and then May continually brought the exact same proposol back to Parliament expecting the outcome to change. Boris and Brexiters still don't want the backstop (created by May along with the EU), Brexiters continue to moan about it but still haven't come up with a viable and legal alternative.
Brexiters tend to blame Parliament when really it's the Tories mishandling of it, and the people that put them in power and gave them the mandate (mostly Brexiters themselves).
Don't blame our democratically elected Parliament when Brexiters fell for the rhetoric from May and Boris and expected them to deliver the undeliverable.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:35 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"You clearly have never met Mr Bercow. I used to know him...never thought he was the sort of guy who should become an MP, let alone Speaker."
From the other ill-thought-out opinions you've presented here as fact, then I'm more inclined to like Bercow as an individual simply because you don't. It seem's you're wrong, or woefully misinformed, about most other things.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Join me in the nonexistent Bavarian Illuminati. No lizard costume needed, no physical modification required, bacon sandwiches perfectly OK. Just turn up at any of the meetings we don't of course actually have. Because we don't exist. And fill in an application form. Black ink, capitals, all major alphabets accepted. If we existed, we'd get back to you.
Meeting locations and times are in a simple steganographic system in AManFromMars1's posts. If you can't figure it out, sorry, don't qualify. We do have our standards.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:21 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Speaker of the House John Bercow, forgetting his nominal neutral role, was quoted by Beeb political editor Laura Kuenssberg on Twitters, as stating: "It is blindingly obvious that the purpose of the prorogation now would be to stop Parliament debating Brexit and performing its duty.”
The Speaker is not neutral - in debates, he is required to treat all members and parties equally. But when it comes to upholding the sovereignty of Parliament his job is definitely NOT neutral. He does whatever is necessary to protect the rights of Parliament against unlawful attempts by the executive to crush those rights.
He might even have the power to order the arrest and detention of a member who attempts to undermine Parliament. Oh please yes!
Viva Bercow!
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:00 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
If you think that the political output from the BBC is biased towards remain, you have obviously never watched a single episode of Question Time. The same Question Time that has had Nigel Fartage on dozens of tiemns, but never a single MEP from any of the non-brexit parties.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:27 GMT James Anderson
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Hmm.. the whole point of these petitions is if you get 10,000 sigs they have to debate it in parliament.
So we have a petition to debate in Parliament the subject of Parliament not being in session.
No more absurd than the average remoaner/exitier logic, but, would amuse me to imagine the debate in an empty house, it would be a lot more coherent than the normal level of debate.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:24 GMT Paul 195
Re: So, to sum up. . .
For an interesting comparison, the Brexit petition in favour of proroguing parliament managed to collect 304 signatures.
The petition requesting that parliament is not prorogued was gaining about 300 signatures *every ten seconds* this afternon. It's slowed down a bit now that (presumably) lots of people are travelling home from work, but it's still averaging around 250/second.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:42 GMT werdsmith
Re: So, to sum up. . .
For an interesting comparison, the Brexit petition in favour of proroguing parliament managed to collect 304 signatures.
It is one of the flaws in democracy that people who are happy with the way things are tend not to feel the need to do anything about it. This is what happened in the now stale 2016 referendum, when all the polls had remain odds on to win, many didn't bother to vote and so the nutters ran away with it.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:01 GMT John Sager
Re: So, to sum up. . .
To sum up, both the author of the piece appears to be, and apparently a lot of El Reg readers are, Remainers. Fair enough. I'm definitely not, but I won't stop reading El Reg in a huff. You might mostly be Remainers, but there was actually a majority to leave in the plebiscite all those aeons ago, and subsequently Parliamentarians have voted in several votes to approve the legal machinery that enables us to leave. So why are so many of them now trying to stop us leaving, with all this 'no-deal' screaming being just a smokescreen over that aspiration? Cue the downvotes.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
It's worth noting that in 2017, 54% of the electorate voted for parties that had pledged to oppose 'no deal' in their manifestos. So if we are playing 'will of the people' then you are hoisted on your own petard - if we have to respect 52% voting leave, we also have to respect 54% voting 'but not with no deal'.
Please be intellectually honest and accept that BoJo is sidestepping the elected representatives of the people.
I might also point out that traditionally people are allowed to CHANGE THEIR MINDS over the course of three years when new facts and circumstances arise, even after a national vote - this is why we have regular general elections instead of, for example, being forced to accept Teresa May for life.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:37 GMT John Robson
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Not only should people be allowed to change their minds, but we should remember that what the current crop of idiots on TV are saying we voted for is in fact *not* what we voted for.
Three years ago there were promises of a customs union, and a quick trade deal.
Now that we have had three years to come up with some sort of plan we are told that we all voted to leave with no deal on a date that had never been mentioned.
It is the most despicable reflection that many people seem to believe the story as presented by the Ministry of Truth.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Three years ago there were promises of a customs union, and a quick trade deal."
*This* is it.
Yes, those of us who opposed it knew all this was a lie at the time. Anyone paying attention to the facts knew that the "quick and easy deal" claims- like the "£350m for the NHS"- were bullshit.
But that's the line they campaigned on, not the No-Deal Brexit many of them secretly wanted.
It was clear that the hard right Tory/UKIP drivers of Brexit were the type of people who were going to use an inch of legitimacy to claim a mile to suit themselves, and that's exactly what they've done.
They've used a narrow victory in the referendum that asked *nothing* more than whether Britain should leave the EU or not (no timetable, nothing on the nature of any settlement), and weaseled that into insinuating that a no-deal Brexit (#) by Johnson's own "do or die" deadline of October the 31st is what people voted for.
And certainly, I have little sympathy for the useful idiots who believed- and enabled- a bunch of such obviously self-serving liars at the time, much like I'd feel about those who let a thief or obvious conman through the door.
But the fact remains that Leave *did* campaign on "loads of money for the NHS and easy trade deals" rather than "deliberately engineering a no-deal with the EU in order to get a pact with the US that will almost certainly let them dictate terms and turn the UK into a shitty, low-tax, low-rent vassal state the benefits the rich at the expense of the majority and will ultimately destroy the NHS".
Because they'd have fucking obviously lost if they *had* been open about what they wanted.
(#) It's noticeable that they're barely even bothering to keep up the pretence that they're trying in good faith to get a deal with the EU now.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 14:57 GMT Cederic
Re: So, to sum up. . .
A customs union was never promised. A quick trade deal should have been possible, and would likely have happened if the pro-EU MPs hadn't kept sabotaging the negotiations by working to subvert the entire process and prevent us leaving at all.
As they continue to do.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
I think you're a little confused on this referendum thing. How is left to the government and Parliament, in or out was derogated to the people. Whether and what sort of deal we have is not something we can decide via a referendum because it depends on a third party, hence the question we were asked. I could also mention that since Parliament has been unable to agree on any actual deal, it can hardly then demand a right of veto on no deal.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:12 GMT DavCrav
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"I could also mention that since Parliament has been unable to agree on any actual deal, it can hardly then demand a right of veto on no deal."
Well, they had a few rounds of indicative votes, which got pretty close (closer than 52/48, for example) to requiring customs union, and that was only after two rounds of voting, and with the Executive sticking its oar in.
Of course, the Legislature wasn't given much opportunity to do this, as May and then Johnson actively tried to prevent it from having its (constitutionally required) say,
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:15 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
And Parliament does not negotiate with foreign governments.
No man is an island, and no country exists in a vacuum.
Of course governments negotiate with each other. It's called diplomacy. Even North Korea interacts with its neighbours.
To state that "Parliament does not negotiate with foreign governments" is wilfully misrepresenting normal relations with other countries as adversarial. It's this sort of bollocks that has got us into the trouble we are in in the first place.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 23:36 GMT MonkeyCee
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"To state that "Parliament does not negotiate with foreign governments" is wilfully misrepresenting normal relations with other countries as adversarial."
I'm sorry, but you've missed the point entirely.
Parliament literally does not negotiate with foreign governments. Foreign parliaments do not negotiate with foreign governments. Parliament is the legislative branch of the UK government (like congress in the USA). Congress does not directly negotiate with other countries, that's an executive function under POTUS, State or Defence depending on how kinetic the negotiation is.
In the UK the government is formed by the party with the support of the majority of Parliament. The government is the executive branch, and does things like negotiate with other governments, make treaties, fight wars. Usually declaring wars is part of the legislative branch, along with writing laws and raising taxes. Which are pretty much the definition of sovereign.
Much of the insanity of Brexit has been the lengths that the government has gone to keep Parliament away from the business end of things, and how willing certain MPs have been to let them have the rope in the hope that the mass hangings will lead to a socialist paradise in Islington.
TL&DR: Parliament doesn't negotiate with foreign governments in the same way you don't bury the survivors of a plane crash.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 09:42 GMT SolidSquid
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Referendum said a majority wanted brexit, but even then the campaign talked about it with regards to a deal, not no deal. Now that we have the actual options which could be reached given the red lines the Conservatives set for negotiations (no deal, May's deal or no brexit), we could put to a second referendum to see what option the public favours
Also, parliament explicitly didn't derogate the decision via the referendum. They set up the referendum to be advisory, it was supposed to give an indication of what the leanings of the public were but not be legally binding on them
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:17 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Sounds fairly legal to me"
That wasn't in the enabling bill, it was in a fucking leaflet published by porky-boy Cameron. If you believed that this was in some way legally binding, enforceable, or indeed had any actual meaning whatsoever, I've got a bridge you might like to buy.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:32 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The enabling bill for the referendum explicitly stated that it was advisory and non-binding. You know, the thing that Parliament voted on to have the plebiscite in the first place. The idea of doing so was as a sop to the europhobes within the Tory Party in a desperate attempt to keep an outdated party based on privelige of the rich together. Cameron knew full well that anything published in that leaflet was in no way legally binding, so he put that in to try and quieten down the splitters in his own party. The fact that you got dragged along and believed it only demonstrates your own stupidity. It was obvious to everyone with two functioning brain cells that it was as much of a lie as the £350M on the side of a bus, or Farage standing in front of a picture of lots of brown faces queuing in an attempt to woo racists.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 16:32 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Where did I say I was okay with the lies told by Cameron? I'm just saying that I have the wit to determine that they were lies, because the law was laid down by the enabling bill, not in a leaflet, and they contradicted one another. You are obviously lacking the ability to deduce that.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 23:37 GMT MonkeyCee
Re: So, to sum up. . .
" Where votes only count if they produce the results the Establishment wants"
That's cute. The notion that if the establishment wants something you get any sort of vote in it. You get coke or pepsi. Douche or turd sandwich.
Did the establishment want a change to first past the post voting? Fuck no, primaries and local party committees are far easier to control. So you got to choose between the 4th best and 6th best proportional representative systems, or keep the current unfair but understood system.
Did they want Brexit? Hell yeah. Otherwise it would have mentioned customs unions. Given that there was a lot of talk about free trade, and that is inherently the point of such a union, it would imply that both sides are in favour of one. Not so, apparently.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:59 GMT Jamie Jones
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Also, there are over a million "new" UK British adults since the referendum and polls show that 75% of them would vote remain.
As for the deal not even being the same deal as what was voted on, this is what the leave campaign said at the time, straight from the horses mouths, for the deniers!
John Redwood and Rees-Mogg said a second referendum would be a good idea once a deal has been finalised: https://infacts.org/rees-mogg-history-backing-second-eu-referendums/
Boris Johnson said we'd stay in the single-market: https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-single-market-brexit-campaign-customs-union-2018-1?r=US&IR=T
As did Farage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
As did MEP Dan Hannan: "Nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market": https://www.voteleavewatch.org.uk/leaving_the_single_market_is_not_an_option
Gerard Batten (UKIP leader) "A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee"
Boris Johnson: "There is no plan for no deal because we are going to get a great deal"
And Liam Fox promised that the 40 trade deals we'd lose access to after leaving the EU will all be replicated or improved on immediately after Britain leaves. How many of the 40 has he improved on..... **ZERO** Well, OK, how many has he replicated? 12 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842)
Liam Fox: "The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"
Dominic Raab: I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this but... we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing"
So, either these people are liars, or they've changed their mind, but the brexitters scorning at a second referendum shows he clearly doesn't think people are allowed to change their minds!
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 01:13 GMT veti
Re: So, to sum up. . .
You can have as many referendums as you like, so long as it's clear what the options are.
In 2016, the "remain" option was clear, but the "leave" option was not well defined. (Many people say it was deliberately obfuscated. I'm not taking a position on that, but it is undeniable that the "leave" campaign did not advocate, then, for anything even remotely like what they're advocating for now.) That needs to be rectified if that is to be held up as the definitive democratic verdict.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 23:13 GMT Justthefacts
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Total BS
There are as many definitions of Remain as Remain voters, all different.
Which party did you vote for in the Euro elections - the communists or the fascists? Neither? together they make up more than 50% of MEPs......
What is your view on constitutionally who should be the next President - should it be the Spitzenkandidat or not? Because that’s a pretty big constitutional hole to be arguing about *after the election*.
You really don’t know anything at all about the system you voted for.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:57 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Excellent. So to summarise your argument, we can have a second ref, and if turns out 52/48 remain, we only have to wait two further years then it’s time for third ref because “people change their minds”.
I'm all for that, simply because the next time the quitters want out they'll have to be a lot more up-front with what 'leave' actually means before it goes on the ballot paper. Cue another 40-years of arguing amongst themselves about what brexit actually means. I'm perfectly happy with that, if they can come up with a logical, consistent, detailed plan for how to leave, before having that referendum, and convince people to vote for it. None of this promising all things to all men bollocks.
Either thay'll take so long to agree, that I'll be well in my grave by then, or they'll agree on something that only a tiny minory of the population will actually want, and we can finally put all this nonsense to bed, and go back to trying to be a functioning democracy.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 03:38 GMT Mark 65
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Likewise Remainers will need to be a lot clearer about what remain means. The EU has been quite clear in recent years that it was unwilling to accept the current UK status of "slightly outside pissing in" and that the overall direction of the EU would be closer integration. Therefore remain is not "as it is now" but is also something that needs to be outlined for those voting.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:00 GMT Cederic
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Given many MPs (e.g. the sexist Caroline Lucas) refuse to recognise the results of any referendum that they lose the whole argument for a second referendum lacks any democratic credibility.
Which in a way is a shame, it'd be fun watching Sturgeon lose yet another one.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:14 GMT BigSLitleP
Re: So, to sum up. . .
As has been said, many many times.....
1) Brexit campaign full of lies, referendum should be re-run
2) People change there minds, seems like the British people have, referendum should be re-run
3) BoJo is now trying to bully his way through with a minority government
4) No deal was not what most brexiteers voted for and does not have a majority backing
I could go on all day. There are hundreds of reasons to stop this shit show. If we had left with a deal I would be bitter but it's what people voted for. No sane person wants a no-deal scenario.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:55 GMT Voidstorm
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Hell, the original referendum was a 38/36/26% split between leave, remain and fucked if I know.
How that becomes a quorum "majority" from the electorate is beyond me. It's more like a hung parliament...
oh, wait.
Johnson et al totally fear that a second referendum, far from reinforcing their position, would go the other way, as posters elsewhere have hinted that a million new voters would likely overturn the first result.
Given the scale of BS spewed by the leave campaign, that would not suprise me.
Which is why they are pulling this undemocratic shit.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 16:41 GMT G Olson
Re: So, to sum up. . .
It's been 400 years since the applecart was turned over, the dross cleaned out, and some long term maintenance done to the working parts. From the other side of the pond, I can smell the stench of rot at the bottom of the apple cart. Yes, stopping the cart cleaning it out, and looking at the broken parts is disheartening. But it needs doing. Thus is why such mechanisms exist.
Yes, we have our own problems and The Outsider is tilting our applecart. Not undemocratic...just not operating according to the normalcy bias.
The past 400 years have been a good run. But, time to reasses and rebuild.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:20 GMT Just Enough
Re: So, to sum up. . .
That's right. Aeons ago. And yet they've still not managed it because suddenly reality was faced and it became obvious that there was no way of delivering what was promised. So now they are delivering something that they themselves specifically said would be a bad idea aeons ago, and was definitely not what was promised. Led by a serial liar who was voted into power by a tiny, minuscule, unrepresentative section of the public.
But the public aren't allowed to indicate if they want this. And he's doing his best to ensure that the public's elected representatives of the highest power in the country don't get a say either.
But Brixiteers are ok with it because they know they do not have the support of the majority of the country, and it's the only way they'll get what they want, because, amazingly, they still believe the lies.
This is not democracy. This is a hijack, a coup, worthy of the worst of banana republics.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Yes, what was promised can be delivered: leave. You may not like it's form but there's nothing impossible about doing what the electorate asked the government to do. What's dishonest is to pretend that all this wasn't discussed during the referendum campaign, because it was. Multiple times. And the people still voted Leave.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:01 GMT Adam Foxton
Re: So, to sum up. . .
@Rupert
So the number on the side of the bus wasn't really a Brexit pledge.
And the 'easiest trade deal ever' was something concocted by Remain or otherwise not truely what was meant.
All that stuff May and her predecessors did to try and keep some sort of trade deal was undemocratic, and the support she got for this from the Brexit side was imagined.
And yet you say this was all discussed multiple times during the referendum. What exactly was it you discussed? And how long do we have until that fails and you recast it as a Remainer plot?
(Update: >580k for Do Not prorogue, about 370 for Do. Not 370k, just 370)
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wile E. Coyote style self-sabotage
WTF? Did you seriously just imply that a significant chunk of your fellow Leave voters were "imbeciles who should be denied a vote"?!!
Yeah, it was obvious to anyone paying attention that the claim was transparent BS, but I'm sure that Leave wouldn't have wasted so much time bandying it about if they hadn't expected some gullible people to fall for it anyway.
Even if you don't give a toss about insulting the useful idiots your side managed to dupe, it makes you look just as fuckwitted that you didn't realise saying so completely undermines the legitimacy of your own side, nudged over the victory line only with the help of "imbeciles who should be denied a vote".
Nice one.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 12:04 GMT markr555
Re: So, to sum up. . .
How can the number on the bus have ever been a pledge? Did the people who paid for it and put the lies on it take over government when the referendum result came in? No, they didn't, so how could they provide ANY money to the NHS It was a blatant piece of bullshit that was matched only by the condescension of the remain 'campaign'. I voted to remain, and wish we hadn't voted (by a majority, no matter how much you try to bring the 'didn't vote' eejits into it) to leave. We lost the referendum, it wasn't advisory, and we need to suck it up and get on with making the best of a bad job.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:17 GMT DavCrav
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Yes, what was promised can be delivered: leave. You may not like it's form but there's nothing impossible about doing what the electorate asked the government to do. What's dishonest is to pretend that all this wasn't discussed during the referendum campaign, because it was. Multiple times. And the people still voted Leave."
1) Your position is absurd. If the only way to leave were for the Army to set off all nuclear bombs and sink the UK, then it would still be physically possible to leave. Should we do it? No, obviously not. So it being physically possible does not mean it's reasonable.
So now you have to decide whether no deal leaving is so unreasonable that it shouldn't be done. I would claim that food and fuel shortages, riots, etc., is too high a price to pay for respecting an advisory referendum three years ago, where the leave side wasn't clearly explained.
2) People still voted Leave because all of the Leave politicians said that what is happening right now would never happen, and the Remain side were just making it up. How close to the cliff edge do you have to get before you put the brakes on?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Umm...the Treasury said just a vote for Leave would result in a year long instant recession and 500k job losses. Now they tell us food will run out and the four horsemen will roam the land if there's no deal. Do you see the problem? No? Then you are terribly gullible :-)
Most of the world are not members of the EU. The majority of the rest of the world's economy even trade with the EU sans trade deals! And yet they survive: please explain the basis for the nonsense :-)
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:52 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The rest of the World haven't agreed one thing and then turned around the following day to say that they will no longer honour the agreement made. For example BJ is claiming we no longer need to pay the £39Bn 'divorce' bill. If we don't pay our debts why would the EU trade with the UK? The UK will have shown the rest of the World that its government cannot be trusted. Who would want to trade with the UK after that? I would list all of the other broken promises and insults aimed at the EU but I guess you already know these and don't care.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:58 GMT Justthefacts
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Well, why don’t we test your opinion that this would be a default by the UK against.....legal advice controlling tens of thousands of contracts for several trillion pounds?
It’s not hard to check. Credit Default Swaps exist. If the UK were to be in default, they would trigger. Every Single Financial Institution has taken legal advice as to whether it would constitute default, and trigger payment of CDS’s.
It wouldn’t. End of.
Please stop making stuff up.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 11:09 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The OP didn't mention anything to do with CDSs. Stop making stuff up yourself.
The point stands that if you renege on international obligations (like paying what you owe for membership of a trading bloc), others aren't going to trust you. Those people you've run out on certainly aren't.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 10:43 GMT Justthefacts
Re: So, to sum up. . .
We don’t *owe* it. That’s your spin on it, but factually it is untrue.
If we owed it, according to international law, then failing to pay it would be a default on debt.
It had been determined *not* a default , and therefore not a legal debt.
It (May be) a debt of honour. Goodwill, ex gratia, to preserve future relationship with EU. Much, indeed the majority, isn’t even costs already incurred, rather it is what we said we *would* fund for 2020-2021 spending. “Said” as in “legally non-binding commitment”.
So, nobody but a moron will expect us to pay legally non-binding bills for 40bn in future. But nobody but a moron would expect that anyway, from any country. Do you think that Italy is likely to pay its 400bn Target2 obligation anytime soon?
-
-
-
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:34 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Most of the world are not members of the EU."
Most of the world haven't been UK business's home market or a major part of UK industry's supply chain for four decades. They still won't be so there's no difference there.
The EU has been UK business's home market and a major part of UK industry's supply chain for four decades. Now it won't be. That's where the big difference lies and it's not a good difference.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 04:36 GMT Jamie Jones
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Yes, what was promised can be delivered: leave. You may not like it's form but there's nothing impossible about doing what the electorate asked the government to do. What's dishonest is to pretend that all this wasn't discussed during the referendum campaign, because it was. Multiple times. And the people still voted Leave."
No-one said it wasn't discussed. It was discussed quite clearly. The brexitters unanimously said we'd stay in the customs union; we'd NEVER have a no-deal, and a referendum after the 2 years based on he final verdict would be a good idea.
So clear, I provide video links to them saying exactly that: https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2019/08/28/pm_johnson_shuts_parliament/#c_3857873
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 06:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
I can assure you none of the Brexiteers mentioned ever said we would stay in the Customs Union, since that would prevent the UK trading with anyone outside the EU on anything other than EU terms. The Single Market and the CU are not the same, although plenty of people think they are: Norway is a member of the Single Market but not the CU for example.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 01:41 GMT MonkeyCee
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"The Single Market and the CU are not the same, although plenty of people think they are"
You are completely correct. Specifically members of the EFTA are in the SM not the CU.
They are all in Schengen*, had to draw that Venn diagram in an exam once. EFTA and EUCU are exclusive sets, Schengen and CTA (UK and Eire) are exclusive sets, Eurozone is a subset of the EU which is a subset of the EUCU.
However, I do feel that many Leave voters would feel the same about EU membership as EFTA membership. Notably following EU laws in many areas, EU courts ruling on laws, free movement of people, paying into the common fund, all while not having any MEPs or a seat on the Council of Ministers.
* I say that there are fiddly bits that aren't, but the bloke marking my exam was looking for a less pedantic view, and told me as much in class
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:18 GMT JLV
Re: So, to sum up. . .
“””
- He just may make, for example, well, an off-the-cuff remark about Boris Johnson, - and you'll have to laugh at it.
- OK. So, he mentions Boris Johnson - and I'll laugh.
- No.But he may mention Boris Johnson not in the context of a joke.
- Well, how's that possible?
“””
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The nub of the matter is, I and other's like me don't think our exit from the E.U. a good idea.
Increasingly that unease is turning to from desire to bring others along on the intellectual journey to a determination to prevent the damage to our lives and loved ones.
There is real and lasting harm being done to our system of government at present, with the best will in the world, how saintly do you expect the public to remain once the damage has set in?
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Brexiter trying to confirm every prejudice about Brexiters.
When Slovenia decided to leave Yugoslavia despite being the smallest constituent State.
It turned out they had the biggest brains, and the most people who were au fait with modern weapons.
Which side would the Army be on in a civil war between Leave and Remain? The one with the money and the intelligent people or the one with the mobs with pitchforks?
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:06 GMT Cederic
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Should the streets erupt in violent riots and the police fail to restore order, the Government would need to decide whether to request assistance from the army.
At that point studied neutrality would cease to be an option and the view of Army leaders whether the actions of the Government were legal or not would become very relevant.
It's an interesting situation in that regard.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 22:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Aside from my reluctance to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man..
I'm not sure that's at all a safe assumption.
There are a lot of people who wanted an improvement in conditions as a result of casting their vote to leave. I'd be very wary when they figure out you lied to them, I'd be somewhat wary they might just mind the damage inflicted on them and their loved ones.
I'm not so sure I'd be counting them as fellow travellers after the first wave of disruptions to medical supplies happens. But that said, please arrange to test that assumption, there are many fine facilities up and down this green and pleasant land, where discerning gentlemen might arrange for a free and frank exchange of views. Perhaps, you'd care to suggest one..
-
Friday 30th August 2019 05:43 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Even assuming you're right, what exactly do you imagine is going to happen if and when they realise they've been lied to?
Of course, you're assuming there still is a leave majority, that they'd *all* mobilise and that our systems would do nothing to try and prevent the violence. None of which are likely true.
In the short term, though, that's exactly why the brexiters are trying to blame remainers, to attempt to sidestep the ire of their own supporters when it's revealed the unicorns are actually models made of shit.
It's an empty headed threat, andbone that's oh too familiar from the current crop of Brexit supporters.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:44 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"Well a majority voted to leave"
When reality can no longer be avoided I suspect you'll find that very few people indeed voted to leave, or at least will admit to having done that. The referendum result wll appear to have been a strange statistical quirk.
BoJo should heed his predecessor: “They may ring their bells now, before long they will be wringing their hands.”
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:57 GMT codejunky
Re: So, to sum up. . .
@Doctor Syntax
"When reality can no longer be avoided I suspect you'll find that very few people indeed voted to leave, or at least will admit to having done that. The referendum result wll appear to have been a strange statistical quirk."
Possibly. Kinda like how its hard to find Euro supporters when people like me were branded eurosceptic. A word that fell out of favour when eurosceptic = right. Just as if all goes well you will struggle to find a remainer no matter which rock we look under. Like the pro-Euro people.
-
-
Monday 2nd September 2019 11:29 GMT codejunky
Re: The Euro is not the EU.
@sed gawk
"It is possible to understand why the Euro is basically shit"..."and still be wrong about Brexit"
Yes- 'past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes'. Yet when looking to the future we sometimes have limited information beyond past performance to base our views on.
For example, my experience as a eurosceptic (during the Euro argument) was a very similar set of arguments as now and the facts beat belief. The Euro supporters rejecting most discussion in favour of simple unthinking labels such as 'racist' and eventually eurosceptic but usually unwilling (probably unable) to discuss the topic.
So its possible to be wrong about EU membership even if right about the Euro. My decision to oppose the Euro was based on fact. I choose to apply that method to our membership of the EU and will see if I am right or wrong.
I will point out that it hasnt happened often but I have had a couple of good discussions based in fact and yet still come to differing conclusions based on those facts (specifically Dr Syntax and Roland6).
-
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 21:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
I welcome the expectation being subverted as you realise not all of the population are that interested in treating people peacefully or much bothered about legality.
This is why rules matter, why the lies invalidate the referendum, and why an awful lot of people are going to be looking for people to blame.
Let me know how your expectations work out for you, I hope you've got the good insurance, the one that doesn't exclude the results of your polite little expectation that this raid on the public's future and well-being will be consequence free.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 30th August 2019 15:24 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Even then, the more democratic way of approaching it would be for a political party to put it in their manifesto that this is what they plan to do. If people like that (and their other policies), then they get voted in and get to pass a law enacting it.
If any political party had stood in the 2015 election on a manifesto of leaving the European Union, and people desperately wanted it, to the exclusion of all other normal politics, they would have got elected as a majority government.
As it turns out there was a party with that as their main policy, and they got no seats, that's zero, nada, nothing, zilch*. The chief weasel of that party has since set up another "party" which is in fact a private limited company that takes donations but doesn't offer membership, and not a political party at all, in order to try and con the public into funding his lifestyle some more.
*There is the argument that if we had a decent form of PR in this country, rather than FPTP, they would have got some seats. I donlt see this as a bad thing, as being thrust into the daylight is probably what this group of far-right fanatics needs in order for most people to recognise them for the useless buch of so-and-sos that they are.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 16:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re:" it should require a substantial majority, say 2:1, to overturn the status quo. "
Do you mean the current status quo of the brexit mess, or the previous status quo prior to A50?
I agree that a ref should have a super majority, while I'd love to just revoke A50 on the basis that our advisors reckon it's a duff idea to leave, sadly I think we passed that point.
I favour the triplet "No-Deal", "Remain", "WAB (mays deal)" as ref, so at least if we have no-deal, the country got some agency over the decision. Obvs would pick remain..
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:05 GMT werdsmith
Re: So, to sum up. . .
To sum up, both the author of the piece appears to be, and apparently a lot of El Reg readers are, Remainers.
Tends to be the case in all walks of life where people are required to achieve a higher level of education than wot that fat bloke said down 'spoons the other night.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 21:45 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: So, to sum up. . .
Most of the kids learn the difference between education and qualifications.
You may have stopped gaining qualifications, but your education should continue throughout your life.
Warning signs that you may have been undereducated include finding yourself arguing for Brexit, while unable to point to any reason it's not a bad idea.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:50 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: So, to sum up. . .
So the PM uses the powers that he specifically has within the constitution, in the manner that they were intended to be used (to end a parliamentary session and reconvene another setting out a new agenda for the Government), and you declare this to be 'unconstitutional'?
Whereas all the MPs who promised to accept the result of the referendum, and in most cases were elected on manifesto promises to leave the EU/SM/CU, and who have renegaded on those promises (in most cases from the earliest opportunity) aren't lying / cheating?
If the 'remain' element in parliament want to stop no deal, they can do so - they need to successfully bring a no confidence vote in the government, like they have been talking/threatening to do. If MPs don't like what the PM has done to end the parliamentary session, then again, they can attempt a vote of no confidence. The constitution appears to be as intact today as it was yesterday.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:18 GMT DavCrav
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"So the PM uses the powers that he specifically has within the constitution, in the manner that they were intended to be used (to end a parliamentary session and reconvene another setting out a new agenda for the Government), and you declare this to be 'unconstitutional'?"
Yes. Against the spirit of constitutional law, even if not the letter. Shutting down the only democratically elected branch of government because you don't like what it might do is autocratic. To pretend otherwise makes you a liar or a fool.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:52 GMT werdsmith
Re: So, to sum up. . .
The purpose of Brexit is to restore sovereignty to the UK.
No it is not. Show me the legal stuff that shows that all 27 EU nations are not independent sovereign states?
Some have have chosen to maintain their own currency. Some drive on a different side of the road, some have chosen not to participate in Schengen, some even maintain crown dependencies and those dependencies are NOT EVEN PART OF THE EU.
You need to stop listening to that thick drunk bore in Wetherspoons because he is an idiot and he is talking shit.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:59 GMT DavCrav
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"The sovereignty of parliament has shifted to Brussels over the past 40+ years; as John Bercow likes to remind MPs, EU law trumps UK law. Ditto every other nation in the EU. The purpose of Brexit is to restore sovereignty to the UK."
No, no, no, for the love of God, no. Parliament has always been sovereign, that's why we're in this mess. If EU law were primary, then you wouldn't be able to leave. Parliament has always has the legal authority to refuse to implement any EU directive/regulation. Doing so might have meant being thrown out of the EU, or losing your voting rights, but the UK has always been sovereign. Parliament agreed to follow some other rules for expediency's sake, like with those on radio signals, for example, or the Outer Space Treaty.
What the Brexit mess shows is that it's a lot more difficult to untangle cables than tangle them. Which everyone here knows.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:55 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"The purpose of Brexit is to restore sovereignty to the UK."
Purpose and result are two different things. As an isolated nation the UK will have far less clout in the world than it did as part of a larger block. (Note that phrase "part of" because that's the situation, not "subject to" which seems to be the Leaver view.) I really can't see how having less clout equates to "restored sovereignty" but, hey, we'll have taken back control.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 20:42 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: So, to sum up. . .
"As an isolated nation the UK will have far less clout in the world than it did as part of a larger block"
Not necessarily true.
An "isolated UK" would be expected to have less clout than the very much larger block as a whole.
That block consists of 28 nations; if the majority opinion is one that benefits the UK, the UK has more clout. However, there will be times when the EU opinion is contrary to the UK's interests, and then the UK has no clout at all.
It also ignores the fact that an "isolated UK" acting only in it's own interests should be much more nimble in making a decision than the much larger block of 28 different opinions that have to be welded into one. Sometimes, clout can come from being swift to make a decision (or at least being the first to make a decision).
So at times the UK will have less clout. And at times, it will have more.
And of course outside the EU, the UK isn't an isolated nation. The UK is part of numerous bi-lateral, multi-lateral and international treaties and agreements, and your use of the word 'isolated' is inaccurate and misleading. I suspect deliberately so.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 00:15 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: So, to sum up. . . Democracy? What democracy?
we had a lying, cheating referendum campaign and now we have parliament unconstitutionally shut down to 'restore the sovereignty of parliament' that had never been lost . . . until now.
I agree with some of that. So-
23 June 2016, the UK had a referendum. Leave, or Remain in the EU. Leave got 51.9% of the vote, but we haven't left yet.
That was a rather vicious campaign that shocked and suprised a large section of the 'public', especially the Left. So the BBC for example didn't see that coming. So it highlighted a bit of a democratic defecit, and how out of touch some segments of society were to the will of the people. That thing 'democracy' is meant to be about.
Three years later, people are still in denial, especially politicians, and of course the treasonous pile of steaming bovine excrement that is the BBC. Who are of course a tad conflicted.
Procedurely, things are all pretty normal. Parliament's been on holiday, and prorogation's normal. So there's a break, conference season, Queen's Speech setting out the next session's legislative programme and back to work. The previous session had been the longest in a few hundred years because MPs wouldn't pass the previous Leave agreement, or come up with any viable alternatives. So this is one way to break that impasse.
Plus there are possibly some fringe benefits, like sacking Bercow and charging him with misconduct in a public office. His position as Speaker is supposed to be procedural/neutral, but he's shown himself to be anything but.
Our state broadcaster's reasons are perhaps more curious, unless you ignore it's commercial ventures. So it's been busily alienating 51.9% of the UK licence payers, which is all the stranger give Leave voters were supposed to be older.. Which is also the BBC's main, previously loyal audience. But then it's also spent time lobbying to regulate and restrict broadcasting competition in the UK and EU to keep out those pesky foreign broadcasters like RT or Al Jazera.. And of course once we leave the EU, the BBC then becomes a foreign broadcaster, which will impact it's Worldwide and Studios tentacles. So it's been rather conflicted, as well as clueless.
But such is politics. Lefty MPs calls for protests and civil disobedience could make for a fun run-up to Halloween fesitivities, and then of course those are followed by Guy Fawkes night..
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 03:00 GMT streaky
Re: So, to sum up. . .
To *accurately* sum up: lawfully emplaced prime minister acts entirely within the law and constitutional norms and settles parliament down a bit and they all cry like babies about things they plainly don't understand. There's gonna be such a massive turfing out after the next GE..
-
-
-
-
Friday 6th September 2019 19:04 GMT Intractable Potsherd
Re: So, to sum up. . .
I have lived through a number of Tory governments, and the only half-decent ones have been Edward Heath's (though I was very young then and so probably don't have a nuanced view, but his government did take us in to the EEC>EU, so kudos there) and John Major's, though neither were great. Before "New Labour", things were, in general, much better for the area I lived in when Labour were in power than when the Tories were.
That there are the descendants of working-class families in the Tory party shows that those people can't be trusted - Tories have done nothing for the working class unless a gun was held to their head. To have e.g. a bus driver for a father and then become a Tory politician speaks of clueless Ness at best, and betrayal at the worst.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:10 GMT Chris G
Re: Now we know what taking back control really means…
In the event this current crowd does remain in power, I think bringing back some form of Inquisition is highly likely. The head honcho would almost certainly be Rees-Mogg who would probably insist on Witchfinder General being included in his title.
Regarding Boris' attempt at closing Parliament, I am surprised he hasn't claimed executive privilege in the same vein as his tree swinging oppo across the pond.
This is certainly an indication of what is likely to come if he remains in Number 10 for any length of time I suppose he will announce his latest policies via the Telegraph, or does he tweet?
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 09:40 GMT Evil_Goblin
Re: Now we know what taking back control really means…
No-one suspects the Star Chamber...
"In the Star Chamber the council could inflict any punishment short of death, and frequently sentenced objects of its wrath to the pillory, to whipping and to the cutting off of ears. ... With each embarrassment to arbitrary power the Star Chamber became emboldened to undertake further usurpation. ... The Star Chamber finally summoned juries before it for verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts. It imposed ruinous fines."
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:43 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: Taking back control
There's an instructive comment on the Guardian, along the lines of "Parliament refused to approve the terms, so only has itself to blame". You can bet this will be the line Cummings is spinning - black is white, up is down, and parliament is the enemy of democracy.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 10:40 GMT Charlie Clark
Re: Taking back control
This certainly seems to be the line of, presumably, social media fed vox pops.
Mind you, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has contributed to this by steadfastly refusing to adopt a position over the key issue.
Instead of the government suspending parliament, it should parliament suspending government and forming a true government of national unity to take care of business until negotiations with the rest of the EU 27 have reached a satisfactory conclusion. Easy enough if you get parliament involved in the negotiations, something which May refused to do and which Boris won't even countenance.
I guess the plan is to try and ride out the protests, crash out and hope for a wave of patriotism in the ensuing general election.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:15 GMT Cederic
Re: Taking back control
Parliament still has control.
If MPs don't feel the current Government is acting in the best interests of the country it can hold a vote of no confidence which, if successful, will assure the end of this Government.
That option remains available and allows the democratic imposition of parliamentary will upon the Government. I think we'll find out next week whether Parliament as a whole chooses to take it.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:07 GMT RGE_Master
This is a site for technology, not politics, I was waiting for this to come up.
The register, Biting the hand that feeds IT. This is not IT related and if people want to read about it they can go to BBC.co.uk, The Telegraph etc etc. Please keep this website on subject which is IT related, NOT politics.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
If you think politics do not affect IT, your basement must be very deep and well shielded.
We've had the cancellation of a PHP conference this week for political reasons, and an event which may well cause the migration abroad of many readers of the Reg, the loss of research facilities and the like has to be deeply concerning.
This is a reminder that when asked the man who is now PM said "Fuck industry", and if that isn't relevant to IT I do not know what is.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Oh really
He said it in the context that Airbus and BMW were saying Brexit was a threat to jobs and investment, and he didn't like them saying it. "Business having too much influence" is just the attempt to apply chrome plating to a turd. His remarks were explained away afterwards by his joculators - where on the other side of the Atlantic have we heard that before?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:25 GMT Justthefacts
Re: Oh really
Not all business is multinational corporations.....
Airbus and BMW are correct that Brexit will harm their business, just as it will harm Amazons business to lose their cross-border tax avoidance scam when competing with small UK booksellers.
But small independent booksellers and small business generally, would benefit massively from the protectionism afforded by Brexit. And they don’t get interviewed in the FT, nor pay to lobby Parliament.
To see the damage inflicted on small UK businesses by membership of the EU every day, have a look at the UK Assay Offices. They are (relatively) small, and their business has been utterly devastated, down by 80%, by the (illegal) actions of Amsterdam, which while fully acknowledged to be illegal, the ECJ has somehow failed to come to *any* judgement in fifteen years....
You can be on either side of the protectionist / globalist argument, but listening only to the pay-to-play multinationals would be bonkers
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 06:55 GMT eldakka
Re: Oh really
Airbus and BMW are correct that Brexit will harm their business, just as it will harm Amazons business to lose their cross-border tax avoidance scam when competing with small UK booksellers.
And when their customers who buy those books lose their job because the multinational they worked for has pulled out of the UK so can no longer afford to buy those books, who'll buy the books then?
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:18 GMT Gothmog
Agreed and seconded. There's no IT angle to this article. And... it's biased. Surely as a responsible news site you need to be impartial - or you need to publish it under 'Comment' rather than 'Policy' and make it clear it represents the view of the writer?
PS. I happen to fully agree with your bias from a personal point of view. I'd also have been equally annoyed if the slant had been Pro-Brexit. I expect you to be neutral as a News website and let the commentators commence the flame wars which I'm sure we'll all do.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Balance
There is no halfway point between outright lies and bitter reality.
There is truth, and there is rhetoric. beyond a certain point you have lies.
Where is the balanced point between, "the dodgy bugger in number 10 is at it" and "Boris Johnson will basically act in the best interest of the U.K".
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 01:51 GMT veti
Re: Balance
Where is the balanced point between, "the dodgy bugger in number 10 is at it" and "Boris Johnson will basically act in the best interest of the U.K".
Neither one can be in any way defended as an objective statement. Any site that uses either of these, unless in quoting some other relevant party, is transparently commenting/opining on news, not reporting it.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:22 GMT DavCrav
"Surely as a responsible news site you need to be impartial - or you need to publish it under 'Comment' rather than 'Policy' and make it clear it represents the view of the writer?"
One can be unbiased and still not be neutral. If one person is lying and the other is telling the truth, the unbiased viewpoint is "A is a liar". The neutral viewpoint is "Both A and B are saying things."
In this case, the unbiased viewpoint is that this is an outrage, the kind of thing we read about in Turkey or India (very recently) and call an outrage there.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 01:55 GMT veti
No! The unbiased viewpoint is "A says this, B says that. Authorities C, D and E concur that A is incorrect."
"A is a liar" draws inferences that go well beyond the facts in evidence. First, that A is not just misinformed but deliberately dishonest. Second, that A does this frequently or habitually, it's not a one-off.
"This is an outrage" cannot possibly be an unbiased comment. "Outrage" is a state of mind, it requires a specific mind (i.e. subjective point of view) to be "outraged". It's like "offensive" - there is simply no way to assign any objective meaning to the statement.
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 23:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
I feel the need to offset your example of the Daily Mail and Telegraph with the Guardian and Independent.
Not sure what "responsibilities" the press have to ram their own personal opinions down people's throats though? I'd far rather just read factual news sources, but those are very difficult to find nowadays. I end up just reading 5-6 different websites to try to get some balance.
-
Tuesday 3rd September 2019 12:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sure, go ahead. The Grauniad in particular is incredibly biased, and often just as wrong as the Daily Heil.
Pro tip: factual news sources don't exist, and never did. Pining for the good old days when you could rely on what you read in the press is daft - all you're picking up on is the age of instant fact checking makes it harder to ignore that every source is biased.
I never said the press had a responsibility to ram opinions down our throats. My point was that they don't have any responsibility not to. Reading opinions from both sides is indeed the key. Though I think we can be forgiven if we ignore both the Heil and the Grauniad.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:21 GMT heyrick
This is not IT related
An insane government trying it's hardest to fuck up the country in which you may well be employed and/or have contracts with. That makes it everybody's business.
Unless you are one of those peculiar people who think "it'll be okay"[*] or "it'll all come out in the wash"[*] or "they need us more than we need them"[*] or "don't worry, nothing will change"[*] and my favourite "screw Ireland, nobody can spell their names anyway"[*].
* Actual quotes from fellow ex-pats. I think that shooting myself in the head would hurt less than talking to such utterly delusional people, but hey, "Nige is my man, he wouldn't lie"[*].
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:30 GMT PrivateCitizen
@RGE_Master
So despite not wanting to read "more articles on Brexit" you were:
1) Waiting for this
2) Read it
3) Felt the need to comment so the whole world can know both your displeasure in the articles existence and complete inability to move past it to the next article.
I have no words.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:20 GMT Dan 55
Re: What an unmitigated shitshow
However they've got a written constitution which generally stops that kind of thing there and then. It wouldn't allow him to announce a shutdown, get the nod from Brenda, and if anyone's got a problem with that they they can see him in court sometime next year or the year after (but the case will be thrown out anyway).
Written constitutions are useful. They're a backstop, if you will. The UK should have one too.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 02:07 GMT veti
Re: What an unmitigated shitshow
If anything, Trump has shown just how little the written constitution matters - because those who are supposed to enforce it are unable or unwilling to do so.
That's "populism" - by nature, it defies any kind of restraint, no matter whether it's written or not.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 20:52 GMT EvilDrSmith
Re: What an unmitigated shitshow
"The UK should have one too"
It does. Granted, not just a single piece of parchment, but a collection of written laws that are deemed constitutional laws, and thus form a written constitution.
The constitutional precedents are all written down too (hard to remember how they agreed to do something 250 years ago, but helpfully, they wrote it all down).
Though of course the pro-remain MPs in parliament did rip up one of those constitutional precedents (metaphorically, not literally) earlier this spring. So actually, a written constitution wouldn't seem to help that much in this situation after all.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:20 GMT Cederic
Re: What an unmitigated shitshow
Sit back, enjoy the ride. You have a front row seat on supreme drama, executed with passion, finesse and farce.
At some point you may need to directly act - e.g. the British public have voted to leave the EU, voted in MPs promising to leave the EU and voted in MEPs promising to leave the EU (and if you're really lucky, parliament will actually do what they were voted in to do and leave the EU). You may want to write to your MP, or join a peaceful protest in support of whichever position you favour, or engage in spirited discussion with people online, but otherwise sit back, relax, enjoy the entertainment. It isn't free, but it certainly is interesting.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Inaccurate
If this was to "push through no deal", the proroguement would last until November 1. Since it doesn't, your statement is inaccurate. Either way, Parliament can very easily "stop no deal" in the meantime either by holding a confidence vote or repealing the Withdrawal Bill.
What, opponents of no deal don't have the votes for either? All mouth and no trousers then!
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Inaccurate
@Rupert Fiennes
It matters not whether the opposition have sufficient votes or not - it's a dick move.
It's anti-democratic - actually anti-democratic, not 'you don't like the fact the leave campaign cheated and you won't stop going against the will of the people' anti-democratic.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Inaccurate
@AC: I think you'll find "having the votes" is actually the definition of democracy :-)
Parliament passed the legislation providing for no deal, and has spent a year passing god knows how many pages of legislation to support said bill. If they don't want it, they can repeal it, or can eject the government if they so desire.
Of course, if their desire is actually to frustrate the referendum by delaying us actually leaving indefinitely until they can cancel the whole process, this is a pain. But that really is undemocratic, isn't it?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Inaccurate
They can only appeal it, or do anything much if there is a vehicle to do that. The whole point of suspending parliament is to ensure there is no vehicle to do it.
The government (BJ) is enusring that the days after lifting the suspension will be filled with debating the Queen's Speech leaving no time to be able to do anything meaningful to avoid No Deal.
The only reason not to run the suspension until 1st November is so he can claim that "it was nothing to do with Brexit"
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:52 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: Inaccurate
The only reason not to run the suspension until 1st November is so he can claim that "it was nothing to do with Brexit"
And he doesn't need to. That's assuming he lasts that long as PM. I'd guess that there'll be a pretty swift vote of no confidence as soon as Parliament reconvenes.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:48 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: Inaccurate
Parliament debating legislation, rather than having it forced on them by referendum is how the system works. It is literally called "The Westminster System".
If you remove Parliaments ability to do that we have something else. I don't know, the Caracas system or something. But it's not how Britain is governed.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Inaccurate
Actually no: since Boris flat out refused to comment on prorogation, we can't say he declared he wanted to do it in order to push through no deal. You are thinking of a different politician. And as I mentioned upthread, this doesn't push through no deal since it would last to mid October.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 06:11 GMT CliveS
Re: Inaccurate
Except he didn't refuse to comment. In one of the televised leadership debates he said:
"I think colleagues really are starting to come together, they are thinking about this in a very mature and sober way.
"I'm not attracted to archaic devices like proroguing.
"Let's get this thing done as proud members of a representative democracy that asked the people of this country a question, that received a very clear answer, promised faithfully to put that answer into effect - and now we've got to do it."
That was barely 3 months ago.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:33 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
As I understand it (and I'm not expert), Parliament was going to be suspended again on 14th September anyway, for party conference season. When Parliament doesn't normally sit. So what he's actually done is remove 4 days from them, which is a bit less of the "oh shit it's a coup" and more of an "oh dear it's Parliamentary shennanigans".
So there's still a week for a vote of no confidence, or for backbenchers to sieze control of the order paper, like they did briefly in January.
He's then ending this session of Parliament in order to start a new one and have a Queen's Speech. Which is actually a perfectly normal thing to do on a change of PM - this is the longest continuous session in hundreds of years. Although I'm not sure if the Queen's Speech is amendable legislation or not? If not losing it causes the end end of the government.
They will however have to bring in some Brexit legislation - either to prep for no deal or an amended version of the current deal (if they can create enough fudge).
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:46 GMT Peter X
Re: Inaccurate
Whilst I am sure the things you state are technically accurate (hence, the exact same arguments are currently being used by a number of BoJo's entourage), they are rather disingenuous.
Yes suspending parliament and the Queen's Speech etc, are all normal, it's odd (1). having such a long suspension... recent suspensions have only lasted 7 days (~~ +/-3 days) ish, and (2). this is occurring right at the same time when the country will, without any parliamentary involvement, drop out of the EU causing unprecedented economic upheaval (even if we are to believe this is a short-term bump in the road, it's still a big deal).
This suspension is being done on purpose, and even if you are pro-brexit, and *even* if you are pro-nodeal-brexit, you *should* still question anyone who would suggest that what is happening is normal. It really isn't. And people who suggest otherwise* are absolutely doing to in order to mislead.
* Just to be clear, I'm not having a go at you! But you do seem to be repeating what various people have been saying on TV today... I've had members of my own family repeating to same as well.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:41 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
The suspension is only this long because of the party conferences. So it's not only technically true, it's a ctually true. One tactic remain MPs like Grieve were playing with was voting to not break for conferences. They can still do that, if they can get the votes. So obviously what he's doing is taking four days off his opponents. There have been enough procedural shenanigans on both sides that I don't think this is that bad.
To be honest I'm losing patience with MPs. They need to make a decision. For a year now they've voted down every single option, often several times. We have to choose something. So they still have plenty of time to vote out the government. I'm sure the speaker will let them vote, they've already taken control of business once. Stephen Kinnock has 30 Labour MPs who now want to vote for May's withdrawal agreement. Either if Johnson can get it amended or against his will. But just saying they don't want no deal is no longer credible.
In the end, the government has the power Parliament lets it have. If they don't like it, change it. Or change the PM.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 11:44 GMT CliveS
Re: Inaccurate
"For a year now they've voted down every single option, often several times."
Effectively May's deal voted down three times, After Dominic Grieve's amendment giving Parliament a vote passed on 13th December 2017. As a consequence, the First Meaningful vote on May's deal was scheduled for 11th December 2018 before being delayed until 15th January 2019. It was voted down. The Second Meaningful vote was on the 12th March 2019. It was voted down. The "No Deal" (Spelman) Bill passed on the 13th March 2019. On the same day the Malthouse Compromise was voted down by the Speaker's casting vote. We had the A50 Extension vote on the 14th March, followed by the Beckett and Letwin Amendments on the 25th March. On the 27th March we had the first round of Indicative Votes, one of which - The Customs Union proposed by Ken Clarke - was defeated by a mere 6 votes. Then the Third Meaningful vote on the 29th March at which May's deal was rejected for a third time. The second round of Indicative Votes occured on the 1st April, at which the Custom Union proposal fell short by only 3 votes. The third round of indicative votes were scuppered when the Cooper-Letwin Bill was defeated by a single vote on the 3rd April.
And that's it. Three votes on May's deal in two and a half months (15th Jan - 29th March), and 2 rounds of indicative votes in a week (27th March - 1st April). So you're wrong, Parliament hasn't voted every option down for a year. In the space of 3 months they voted May's option down three times, and were given only two opportunities to try and find a consensus that could command a majority.
That's not a failure of Parliament, that's a failure of the Conservative government to find a deal acceptable to Parliament or to amend the deal in light of its first defeat. You can't complain about Parliament failing to achieve in 2 days what the Government had failed to achieve in 2 years.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:22 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
CliveS,
So what you're saying is that even in indicative votes - there is no consensus on a way forward. That's votes that are non-binding and just give the government an idea where to take negotiations. This despite the fact that almost all of those destinations would require signing the fucking Withdrawal Agreement anyway! Because we have not even started to negotiate the future trading relationship. The withdrawal agreement was about tidying up leaving, and then creating a transition period in which to negotiate staying in a customs union, or taking the Norway option or a Canada-style free trade agreement.
So even in a non-binding indicative vote there was no majority. Because a majority were unwilling to reveal what their compromise position was - the only thing they can seemingly agree on being they don't want "no-deal". Which of course they almost all voted for when they agreed the legislation to trigger Article 50.
I know there haven't been more indicative votes, but don't try to pretend many have moved their positions, or they could have agreed on a way forward. We saw that last week with the failure to even agree a united front on holding a vote of no confidence.
The problem is that some would like to remain in, which most think needs a referendum. And while they still have hope of that won't even indicate what their preferred non-remain option is. Despite clearly not commanding a majority either. Then you've got a smaller number of no-compromise no-dealers - and then various flavours of other.
Continual delay is also not a viable option. Some people need to make a decision. 4 days either way in the Parliamentary timetable makes very little difference to that - as they've had ages to do it already. A month since Johnson took over and decided to go for no deal or a change in the WA.
Now it's decision time.
Well I say that, but I think a substantial number are holding off til the final summit in mid-October. My feeling is that Johnson has gone for this aggressive and divisive tactic because it shows he can command the House, or his government falls. Assuming it doesn't, that give a month to try to get something negotiated and agreed by that summit - on the assumption that the EU side will not change anything if they think Parliament won't let us leave on 31st. Course they may mean it, and may not move anyway - in which case Parliament has a last chance to stop no-deal. But only a little one, I think (what I read from EU think tanks) an extension with no plan will likely not be offered - unless a few weeks to hold an election.
So I see the options as:
1. No deal - because nobody can get organised to stop it, and the other governments won't budge.
2. Johnson gets something on the backstop and a deal
3. Johnson gets something cosmetic - calls it something real and a deal.
4. Parliament votes for May's WI against his wishes.
5. Vote of no confidence next week, general election - fuck knows. I suspect a Johnson win, but the polls are all over the shop, and the campaign will be insane. I really doubt he'd get away with holding it after the 31st - I can't see the Queen falling for that.
6. Johnson loses said election. Chaos. Can Corbyn govern, as a minority party? That could give us a referendum (if we can get a long enough extension), or just signing May's agreement with cosmetic changes. He's even less likely than Johnson to be allowed to renegotiate.
6. Parliament cancels Article 50 (they legally can) but almost certainly won't.
7. Second referendum. Only after an election I think, and will take at least 4 months to organise, I think the Electoral Commission will want more. They like to field-test potential questions for several months. It's too late for this option, unless Corbyn wins an election and can get the EU to give a minimum 6-month extension. Seems almost as unlikely as 6.
Also it's a bit bloody unfair to blame May for failing to improve the Withdrawal Agreement when she spent months trying to do just that - with zero movement from the EU side. Even though it was clear it was totally unacceptable to Parliament.
-
-
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 11:36 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Inaccurate
As I understand it (and I'm not expert), Parliament was going to be suspended again on 14th September anyway, for party conference season.
There is a big difference between suspending Parliament and proroguing it. The former happens allk the time (they've just had their sumemr break), and parliamentary buisiness gets picked up again afterwards. Prorogation entails ending teh current session of parliament, dropping any legislation that is underway into /dev/null and starting again after a new Queen's Speech. That essentially means that any business Parliament brings before the prorogation date has to be concluded or it doesn't happen, and that the first week or so after the new Parliament starts is taken up with debating the Queen's Speech and no ohter business. The timing and length of prorogation is pretty obviously calculated to make it as hard as possible for Parliament to do anything to stop Johnson doing whatever he likes about quitting the EU with no debate or oversight. Whether you agree with leaving or not, it's a pretty clear attempt to sideline parliamentary democracy in favour of autocracy.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 12:41 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
Loyal Commenter,
Then Parliament has the right to hold a vote of no confidence next week, and get a government it does have confidence in. Or force a general election. Or they can seize control of the Parliamentary agenda and try and legislate their way out of this.
The obvious way being to vote for May's withdrawal agreement, which nobody likes but is a way of leaving with a deal - if a majority really do prioritise having a deal over anything else.
I agree, this removes time from the opposition to do stuff. But backbenchers have already proved that they can work with the Speaker to change that, if they really want.
So yes, while I agree that this doesn't look all that good, cries of "constitutional outrage" are ludicrous. The government has done something it has a perfect right to do. And having a Queen's Speech for a new PM and new government, which has announced new policies is equally not outrageous.
I think the big problem is that the opposition to no-deal are split (which Johnson's agressive tactics may unite against him) - so up to now it's been impossible to get enough people to agree on any solution. That simply cannot go on. He has made it slightly harder for his opponents to organise, but on the other hand limited their options to keep just waiting and seeing. I suspect to force a show-down, because he thinks that the only chance to get any change out of Brussels is to show that he can command Parliament. If they'll block deal whatever, then the EU can just wait until that happens, and the whole fucking cycle starts up again.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 16:37 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Inaccurate
Then Parliament has the right to hold a vote of no confidence next week, and get a government it does have confidence in. Or force a general election.
This appears to be Johnson's gambit:
1) Force a vote of no confidence and lose it.
2) Hope that no interim government can be called.
2a) if it can, accept that A50 may be extended or revoked and then an election fought (before we leave with no deal)
2b) it it can't, plan to fight an election (after we leave with no deal)
3) Promise lots of headline-grabbing populist stuff that is uncosted and won't work in order to win that election.
If you've been paying attention, you'll see that he has already been doing lots of (3). Don't fall for any of those promises, he almost certainly won't follow through on any of them if his past record is anything to go by.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 09:07 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
Forcing an election may be one way to solve this crisis. Something has to break this Parliamentary log-jam. The oppposition to no-deal have got to put up or shut up. I don't think Johnson will get substantial concessions - so I think there's a high chance of no-deal. Though there are tentative signs of movement, but I think it's been left too late. This should have been fucking obvious after the last extension, and yet nothing was fucking done.
So either the hate no-dealers have to join the remainers and agree some way for us to stay in. Which constitutionally they can do with a one-clause bill - but they really need a referendum or general election to do it with legitimacy.
Or the remainers have to give up on the idea of perfection, accept they can't stop us leaving and ally with the soft-leavers and sign the Withdrawal Agreement. Then negotiate whatever future relationship they want with the EU afterwards. Which can be anything from full "4 freedoms" membership, down to free trade deal only with Northern Ireland stuck in the Single Market on its own and us having broken the Good Friday agreement by putting up a border between NI and the rest of the UK.
The third option is to continue to fuck around and whine about how they don't like their choices until we leave with no deal.
This has been the case since sometime last year. But with no time pressure they have simply voted to wait and see. Then when there was time pressure they voted to extend A50. Then they carried on doing fuck-all and hoping for the best while refusing to take any of the three options they have. There are no others on offer from the EU.
Now it's time to shit or get off the pot. I don't like the path Johnson has taken, but if it forces an election then fine. And at least he is actually trying to get something productive done, and willing to risk his political career in order to do that. In that sense I've actually increased my regard for him. Like May, he's looked at the hard choices available, and taken one. Contrast that with Corbyn. Does anyone know his Brexit policy? Even now. And he's taken great pains to keep it that way.
Anyone who says that they'd prefer any outcome to no-deal now has to choose. And their failure to do so for the last year has been why nothing has happened for the last year. Now they must act.
Oh and as a last thing, people should try some honesty. Johnson's only chance of amending the Withdrawal Agreement (pretty slim) is persuading the EU that he can leave without a deal. So MPs who oppose no deal, shouldn't bind his hands by saying he can't leave without one, they should just vote for the WA - because that's the solution they're imposing. The only other option is revoking Article 50. And if they want that, they should do that. Anything else is just continuing to avoid the issue.
-
-
Monday 2nd September 2019 09:39 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: Inaccurate
jwa,
That depends on the objectives of the parties in question. For example if one party is happy with the current arrangements, and the other isn't, then under those circumstances there would never be any change.
What you've basically come up with here is a rhetorical point, rather than an actual useful contribution to the discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Inaccurate
Of course, the Government has handed control of parliaments motions to the house to decide the timetable. They did it sneakily and no-one heard about it.
Oh no, just checked they didn't. The Government decide and unless they produce a bill that is amendable and people can vote on those amendments then a vote to Repeal the Withdrawal Bill couldn't happen.
It's not that simple, but you probably know that anyway I'm guessing.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:35 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Inaccurate
Still inaccurate: Parliament voted through a bill that said leave without a deal if none was negotiated.
Also "inaccurate".
Parlaiment voted through a bill entitling May to invoke Article 50. The treaty of which A50 is a part stipulates that there is a two year time limit, unless there is agreement on both sides to extend. "No Deal" is the result if nothing is agreed, but it was implied, and as far as I understand, never explicitly stated.
Parliament has also voted down any proposed deal (well, the same one three times with the words emphaissed slightly differently, which itself was bordering on contempt of parliament).
Parliament has also voted to oppose no deal (there was a majority on that).
Boris is now attempting to prevent Parliament from having a say on anything until the clock runs out. He hasn't explicilty said he's going for no deal, but he has also done aboslutely nothing to prevent it, whilst making it so that he is the only person who has the power to do so. In other countries, this would be known as a coup.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 11:50 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Inaccurate
Coup, as in "coup d'etat":
a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
You know full well that was the meaning of the word that was intended, but chose to deliberately pick an alternative meaning. That's just the sort of doublethink worthy of the goons who are carving up our democracy right now.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:00 GMT Chronos
Re: Inaccurate
If this was to "push through no deal", the proroguement would last until November 1. Since it doesn't, your statement is inaccurate. Either way, Parliament can very easily "stop no deal" in the meantime either by holding a confidence vote
There's a slight problem there. You see, a successful no confidence motion will use up the few days parliament has to sit with the motion, the vote and the fall-out. Then the PM has 14 days to sort his shit out. Then he can call a general election which dissolves parliament on the spot and takes an estimated six weeks to bring to a vote. While all of this is going on, the default outcome as legislation stands is out on Hallowe'en and there's no parliament to stop it.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:19 GMT Mark Jan
About Time
About time we had a politician who could stand up and deliver on what the (albeit slim) majority of people voted for.
If we stayed in the EU the country would do OK.
Once removed from the shackles of the protectionist organisation that is the EU, we'll thrive.
Well done Boris to hopefully finally deliver on the will of the people.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
@Mark Jan - "we'll thrive"
I've seen so many people write comments exactly like this but not one of them, not one, ever has any facts or figures to back it up.
Wishful thinking isn't a strategy - unless you're into 'Cosmic Ordering' a la Noel Edmonds. And then it still isn't a strategy it's just delusional.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
Having skimmed quickly I'm alarmed at the 'monoculture' for an apparently diverse collection of papers, all EFT.
But, considering this was published in January, the message that no deal preparations are now well advanced and there is little to nothing to worry about contrast strongly with the recent claims of the BoJo administration that the government had failed to plan properly for no deal but that was now being remedied with gusto.
I've got plenty of other issues even from my skim, notwithstanding the rebuttal linked by another helpful commentard, but I will try to give it a more considered evaluation when I'm not rushing.
I was hoping for some more detail to be honest.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
You clearly didn't read my upthread comment :-)
Would you like to discuss the veracity of this report, by the Treasury, no less?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
It proved almost comically inacccurate. So, we should ignore the Treasury from here on, right?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:06 GMT BigSLitleP
Re: About Time
I'm sorry, you are obviously not an academic or qualified on this subject. If you read a paper written by someone who is openly biased for or against something, all you will find out is that they are openly biased for or against something. The particular study you listed has been pulled apart by everyone, and i do mean everyone. It's a literal joke in the economic world.
I've read it. It is embarrassing. You made the mistake of thinking no one would read it. You were wrong. You may as well have put up a study showing the earth is flat.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:06 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
Re: About Time
>Economists for Free Trade (EFT), formerly known as Economists for Brexit, is a coalition of economists with strong ties to Brexiteer Conservative MPs
But surely that doesn't matter, economics is a science. Both the Nazis and the Soviet Academy are going to come up with the same answer to the same physics question.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 12:37 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: "economics is a science"
Economics is known as "the dismal science" exactly because it's not science.
A more reliable citation than yours, even though it's wikipedia
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
Line one by Jacob Rees-Mogg: "It unquestionably would be better to leave the European Union with a deal. This is partly because it would smooth the path and lessen the worry for those who do any form of business with the EU or are simply holidaymakers."
Yes, even that cretin is saying leaving with a deal would be better.
-
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 21:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
Reese-Mog is a cretin.
Being rich, and well connected doesn't make one clever.
Speaking with condescension dripping from every syllable while being excessively loquacious doesn't make one clever.
The man is posh and that accent clearly accords with some people perception of clever people.
A non-cretin wouldn't need to beggar the entire country to make a few million quid more.
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:19 GMT Philip Storry
Re: About Time
So, I gave it a chance. I opened it up, and oh look! The economic section is written by Patrick Minford.
The Patrick Minford who said that leaving the EU with a deal would mean we'd have to wind up our manufacturing sector? Shurely shome mishtake?
So I figured I'd jump right ahead to that, and see if he's willing to admit this again. It's a good test of how honest this document is.
Nope. No mention of it.
Lot of breathless words about how everyone else trades just fine - although a failure to admit that they trade WITH DEALS. Lots of talk about getting rid of undemocratic EU regulations, no talk about how democratic WTO regulations are(n't).
Some brief talk of "short term economic disruption", which is a nice way of glossing over his previous more academic efforts in which he admits the real harm Brexit would do. Definitely nothing about winding down entire sectors of our economy. Minimal use of actual figures, preferring to use rhetoric.
Lots of talk about growth, because growth sounds good and confuses those not familiar with economics. If you sold Senegal three toilet roll holders versus last year's one, that's triple digit growth! So you're perfectly justified in saying we should leave the EU, where we sell hundreds of thousands but have minimal growth - just a solid, reliable and profitable market. Let's rush to trade with Senegal on WTO terms!
We've occasionally seen better misuse of "growth" in the plethora of storage technology press releases that El Reg routinely eviscerates, but only very occasionally. This is masterful misdirection.
Frankly, that document is not a good place to start.
It's in no way a serious study.
It's fan fiction.
Nothing more, nothing less. Just fan fiction for the Brexit My Little Unicorn contingent.
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:28 GMT Philip Storry
Re: About Time
I never said trade without deals was a unicorn. You're putting words into my mouth. What I said was that countries still do deals. I was implying that deals are preferable.
The Leave campaigners made that same point - deals are preferable to not having deals. They said as much in 2016, when they said we'd get great deals.
Now they're saying that no deal is what they promised.
These two are mutually exclusive. They were either lying in 2016, or are lying now.
(With the exception of those like David Davis, who have the unenviable but believable excuse of ignorance.)
That's the unicorn. The whole project is one single unicorn. Not individual trade patterns - the whole of Brexit.
So no, not unicorn enough for me.
Here's a suggestion for what you can say in a few years' time though: "I thought I was being a patriot. It turns out they were lying to me about that too."
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:10 GMT BigSLitleP
Re: About Time
"Because they run a very large trade surplus with the UK, large parts of which would be threatened if they insisted on keeping those tariffs?"
On what planet? You do realise we get most of our electricity and gas from Europe? Quite a lot of our food too, because we are not self-sufficient. We sell them crap but we buy actually needed goods. If we leave without a deal, the price of those will go up and people will suffer. If we go elsewhere for them, the price will be even higher and people will suffer more. The only advantage we have is the financial services in London. Other than that, we have no leverage.
Brexiteers need to look at quality, rather than quantity, of arguments for and against. There is no good outcome from Brexit for the majority of people in the UK.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
Umm, you might want to check your "facts". Gridwatch shows us pulling a maximum of 2GW from various interconnectors, and sometimes sending the same amount back. EU members don't produce much gas (except ourselves or NL), and I think you'll find Qatar isn't a member of the EU either. Neither is Norway, although a member of the EEA, a member of the Customs Union.
BTW, since apparently the EU are so keen on cutting off all our electricity and gas, perhaps we should leave? They don't sound like a nice bunch of people to me, even if are kind enough to buy nearly 300 billion of crap off us a year ;-)
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:00 GMT Androgynous Cupboard
Re: About Time
Don't like power? How about food. 30% of food consumed in the UK is imported from Europe. Food imported from outside Europe makes up 19%.
99% of spinach is imported from the EU
93% of aubergines are imported from the EU
92% of peaches, nectarines and apricots
70% of tomatoes from the EU (9% from outside the EU, the rest UK grown)
and of course, 98% of lamb is exported to the EU. Byebye, welsh hillfarming! You have been deemed an obstruction of the one true ideology, and are therefore to be obliterated.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/aug/13/how-a-no-deal-brexit-threatens-your-weekly-food-shop
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 20:52 GMT Justthefacts
Re: About Time
So, your argument is:
1) We import lots of stuff from the EU. They might threaten not to sell us stuff. Therefore, they have us over a barrel.
2) We export lots of stuff to the EU. They might threaten not to buy stuff from us. Therefore, they have us over a barrel.
Can you see the flaw in your reasoning? If not, let me clarify. Every trade is done at a price where the price reflects how much the goods being bought are worth to the buyer. Often there is a power imbalance, but *this is reflected in the price*. If “the EU” have a monosoponistic claim on our export lamb, they would already be paying us sweet FA for it.
In fact, “the EU” doesn’t buy lamb, individual supermarkets do. And they are competing against each other. It wouldn’t make any sense for Carrefour to buy US or NZ lamb rather than UK just to poke us in the eye, when those countries aren’t in the EU either. The willingness of Carrefour to pay won’t change, so if the EU imposes 10% tariff, our price in euro would have to decrease by 10% to compensate. Except, the exchange rate already dropped by 15%, so actually we are ahead on that deal and currently our exports are booming.
You seem to think it’s bad news when effective exchange rate drops, and also when it goes up. You want to “not have your cake and also not eat it”
The reality is, it’s mostly swings and roundabouts.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 13:54 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: About Time
1) We import lots of stuff from the EU. They might threaten not to sell us stuff. Therefore, they have us over a barrel.
2) We export lots of stuff to the EU. They might threaten not to buy stuff from us. Therefore, they have us over a barrel.
Okay, lets dissect this one shall we?
We currently have zero tarrifs on trade with the EU. If we leave with no deal, and rely on WTO tariffs, we haev to treat the EU the same as everyone else, or be in breach of WTO regulations. If we breach WTO regulations, we face trade sanctions.
There are two ways we can go - drop tariffs for everyone or raise tariffs for the EU to the same level as everyone else.
The former will mean a lot of low quality, low priced food flooding the market, destroying all farming in this coutry overnight. The latter means tariffs with the EU. We'll be pretty much forced to go with the latter if we want to avoid rioting, although Trump would love to force low US food safety standard on us for fun and profit. His, not ours.
So, that means:
1) We import lots of food from the EU, this will get more expensive, due to the tariffs we will have to pay (EU countries won't unilaterally drop tariffs, because it means dropping them for every country that currently has them). People's weekly shop will become much more expensive, because importing it from teh EU will include tariffs, and importing it fmor elsewhere will include the same tariffs and higher transport costs.
2) We export lots of things to the EU, which will become more expensive for them. Some things will become cheaper for them to import from elsewhere, without tariffs (e.g. from within the EU) and they will stop buying from us.
Both are bad, and obvious consequences, no cognitive dissonance or doublethink required.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 11:15 GMT Justthefacts
Re: About Time
No, thank you for actually providing a logical argument, but you didn’t fully read what I wrote.
Our exports will *not* become more expensive in France due to tariffs. The 10% tariff will be offset by the 10% currency devaluation that we have already had. Good old Adam Smith and his invisible hand. This is exactly why floating currencies are good, and the Euro currency fix is crucifying half the eurozone.
Imports won’t become *any more expensive than they are now*. In equilibrium, anything we import from EU is just *marginally* cheaper than from elsewhere, with all considerations of transport, quality etc already taken into account. Increasing EU costs just shifts our purchases but makes them only fractionally dearer. What does make our imports more expensive is our drop in exchange rate. Which has already happened by greater than or equal to the WTO tariff. So, all the price rise pain is already in, and there is no cataclysm.
Not *no cataclysm yet*, just *cataclysm already priced in, and tolerable*
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:23 GMT BigSLitleP
Re: About Time
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/ukenergyhowmuchwhattypeandwherefrom/2016-08-15
Sorry, but your figures are grossly misleading. We are a net importer of electricity and we get 47% of our gas from pipelines in the EU. If you are going to try to bluff your way through something, make sure you are not talking to someone who:
A) Is capable of using Google
B) Has worked for many utility companies in the UK
I never said they would cut us off, i said prices would go up. That's not because they are blackmailing us, it's because of trade tariffs. It's not difficult maths or over complicated economic theory we are talking here.
You constantly obfuscate and pull up very dubious sources to act as a smoke screen for your anti-EU stance. You are Jacob Rees-Mogg and i claim my £5
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
Norway (from whom we get 85% of our non LNG imports) *is not a member of the EU or it's Customs Union*. It is therefore not going to apply EU export tariffs.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/820685/Chapter_4.pdf
Use Google more carefully :-)
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:04 GMT Justthefacts
Re: About Time
We are a net importer of electricity.
So, when our exchange rate goes down (or effective rate, which is all tariffs are) then yes electricity price will go up.
This is hardly news.
But guess what, we aren’t a net importer of all commodities. We do export some things. Whether you value them or not, someone else does and is prepared to pay for them. And exporters benefit when exchange rates fall.
Netted out, Efficient Market Hypothesis says that in “zero sum” terms we neither gain nor lose overall. The important effect of tariffs is second order, as both sides lose a good that they would trade if the tariff wasn’t there. And both sides lose the same.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 14:03 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: About Time
Netted out, Efficient Market Hypothesis says that in “zero sum” terms we neither gain nor lose overall.
It's not a zero-sum game, so your assumptions are false. The UK is generally running at a net trade deficit of around £3-4Bn overall, and around £60Bn with the EU, so increased tariffs hurt us more than they benefit us. Tariffs would only benefit us if we ran a consistent trade surplus. Given that the EU would likely be able to get some goods and services elsewhere cheaper if we added WTO tariffs, that deficit would grow, not shrink, under no deal, and that which we have no choice but to import (food) would be more expensive.
You have fallen prey to thinking that the UK is somehow important and indispensible to the rest of the world. This hasn't been the case for a good part of a century, not least due to our appalling history of how we have treated people from other parts of the world in the past. (There's little that is glorious about the history of the British Empire).
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:02 GMT Justthefacts
Re: About Time
I am well aware that it isn’t a zero sum game, but you have failed to understand what that means.
It can be split into a zero-sum and non-zero-sum part.
The zero-sum part causes a zero net consequence to the UK economy. You missed the lesson of the eighties and nineties, that a trade deficit does *not* actually mean that we are somehow living off the bank of mum and dad. Trump makes the same mistake. It simply means that businesses in other countries really want to own GBP in the long term. It’s not up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong.
You are correct that there is a non-zero-sum element: tariffs cause loss to both sides. However, standard economics arguments show that the loss is equal to both sides. Always. In this case, e.g. , the EU suffers less loss per citizen but has more citizens, same total loss. So, if you don’t like no-deal, you should be throwing rocks at the Commission too for not finding a proposal acceptable to UK parliament. It wasn’t BoJo who caused the rejection, it was over half the MPs.
And finally, no I don’t make the mistake that the UK is indispensable. But you make the mistake that the EU is indispensable to the UK. Someone above claimed that 99% spinach was EU.....well I like spinach, but then again I like tabbouleh, maize, stir fry’s, steak, NZ lamb, mangoes, tomatoes both EU and non-EU. To claim that foodstuffs are non-substitutable in an age when we have globalised cuisine, and lost all seasonality in the supermarkets is just silly.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:42 GMT BigSLitleP
Re: About Time
Show us these fabled, as yet uncovered reports. I haven't seen one.
All we've had is Wetherspoons saying everything would be fine, followed by them putting their prices up because it will cost more to get stuff out of Europe! We've had Dyson say that everything would be fine, followed by them moving jobs abroad! We've had JCB saying everything would be fine, then laying off staff!
If you think Brexit will help us "thrive", I've got a Cisco router to sell you. It doesn't have a backdoor, no sir!
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:43 GMT Charlie Clark
Re: About Time
To be fair, no one is really able to reliably quantify the effects. The reports rushed out in 2016 backfired but more recent ones from things like the Official of Fiscal Responsbility and the Bank of England are not impressed by leaving and definitely against doing it on no terms. The other side, however, is full of what-if scenarios heavily dependent upon yet-to-be started trade negotiations.
To leave a trading bloc with which the country does most of its trade is going to be a huge hit, especially for industry with complex supply chains which see products repeatedly cross borders. Throw in the problems and costs are reintroducing customs controls and it's difficult to see an upside. The government is likely to be forced to spend and, hence, borrow more, increasing the debt and quite possibly driving up borrowing costs if there is a run on the currency.
But, hey, I've got an idea. Let's just do it and if it all goes titsup then we've still got our trust funds and overseas accounts, haven't we?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:06 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: About Time
"yet-to-be started trade negotiations."
Be fair. There was announcement just the other day about a completed agreement. And there was one some time ago as well so that's a couple of countries signed up, South Korea and the other one which was, let's see...oh, South Korea. They announced the same thing twice.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:26 GMT Christopher Reeve's Horse
Re: About Time
Well, I guess everyone is entitled to their opnion...
I've never heard a single sensible rational argument for any single instance of any example where the EU is in any way holding the UK back, or at the very least acting for the greater good, be it environment or people. So, you can have your opnion, and that is what it shall likely remain as.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 17:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: About Time
I'll give you one. Solvency II is the EU wide regulatory scheme for insurers. The UK had a perfectly good system previously, which was flexible enough to allow for huge businesses like Aviva, complex organisations like Lloyd's and straight-forward enough for small, simple insurers. Under the new regime, insurers have had to spend hundreds of millions to cope with the additional rules and reporting. This is not a one off cost, much of it is ongoing too. However, the overall capitalisation of individual insurers is pretty much what it was before. So net result is higher premiums for customers, but no greater protection. I was a witness to some of the regulatory capture that happened during the design of the new regime - not deliberate mind you, just as a result of the way it was organised. We now have a system that benefits the bigger insurers (who can soak up the additional cost) and penalises niche players, which the UK really specialises in.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 09:52 GMT Alan Johnson
Re: About Time
Hmm. I am not an expert on Insurance so I have no knowledge of thsi but in my industry EU regulation was a huge improevemnt leading to less beaurocracy than YK regulation and is massively superior to teh ridiculous bysantine and illogical US system. I therefore used google to look up acadmeic papers on Solvency II and although theer are critical papers the consensus to the extent it exists is that Solvency II is a huge improvement,
As I said I don't know enough to judge but it does not seem like thsi is such a strong argument for leaving after all.
In anycase I suspect will b ejust like my industry in which leaving the EU will not mean we are not subjct to EU rules. We like almost everyone in the world will need to comply with EU rules in order to trade with the EU an dthe many countries who use EU rules and suppliers will be unwilling to meet UK specific requirments. What it will mean is we will be subject to the same regulations but without any say in what those regulations are. A massive reduction in sovereignty.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 13:29 GMT Justthefacts
Re: About Time
Assay Offices for the certification of silver and gold. You may not be aware that they are privatised industries. They are the oldest standards bodies in the world, weirdly EU hasn’t tried to bring common standard across EU.
But it *has* systematically discriminated in favour of Amsterdam against the UK causing UK Assay Offices to lose 75% of their business in the last 15 years.
British Steel. Yes, it’s a very difficult industry, but what *actually caused it to finally bankrupt* was paying Carbon Credits to Brussels. Strangely, the German dirty brown coal electricity generators seem to be exempt from paying.
There you are, I’ve given you two examples. Previously you hadnt heard of even one.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:27 GMT theOtherJT
Re: About Time
Even if I voted leave - which, full disclosure, I didn't - I would be just as horrified by this action as I currently am. This is a... I was going to say "Shocking"... abuse of power, but I am not shocked because I have come to expect this kind of thing from our current political class.
The rule of law has to stand for the concept of democracy to mean anything, and what we have learned from this entire brexit debacle is that the people in our cabinet have ZERO respect for it. It's disgusting. I am ashamed to be British today.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:47 GMT John 110
Re: About Time
You might believe it the will of YOUR people, but it's certainly not the will of mine...
PS: Calling Mr Johnson "Boris" like he's a mate just shows how brainwashed you actually are. He doesn't care about you, all he cares about (like his mate, Jacob) is that he stands to make a personal profit out of whatever chaos the country drops into post-Brexit.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:48 GMT Jason Bloomberg
Re: About Time
About time we had a politician who could stand up and deliver on what the (albeit slim) majority of people voted for.
But what exactlty is the Will of the People? That's not at all clear cut -
A majority are in favour of leaving.
A majority are against leaving with no deal.
A majority are against leaving with a deal.
The option which has the smallest number of people against is remaining.
In taking an advisory referendum as if a legally binding one we created the worst kind of clusterfuck omnishambles there could be and now Johnson is determined to force through what only a minority want and the largest majority is against.
How the fuck anyone can call that "delivering what the people voted for" or even democracy is beyond me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:05 GMT Teiwaz
Re: This is an attempted coup.
Incorrect. She has complete freedom of action to agree or disagree. However, going by precedent, she grants such requests, so she did so.
That's just the 'Gentlemens Agreement' propaganda that permitted that justified the restoration.
A twist of the truth that allowed all involved to save face that also involved digging up the corpse of late Lord Protector so he could be executed.
If the Queen refused, it would embarass the entire establishment and while under the conservatives it certainly wouldn't end the Monarchy, the Queen wouldn't be for long after.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 21:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: This is an attempted coup.
"If the Queen refused, it would embarass the entire establishment"
Shame, I thought Air Miles Andy was doing such a good job of embarrassing The Firm in front of the Daily Mail audience and many others in the last few days. Still I guess Randy Andy has been Saved By The (division) Bell, at least for now.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:24 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: This is an attempted coup.
Whilst I totally agree, it's worth pointing out that our representative democracy is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy, not a republic.
Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson has put the Queen in a difficult position between the PM and Parliament, and this, if anything, will lead to her position as head of state being less secure. Whilst I don't agree with the pomp and ceremony around the monarchy, the position of a hereditary head of state does mean that we don't suffer to quite the same extent from the problems of short-termism that having an elected president presents (looks over there...)
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 18:30 GMT Dan 55
Re: This is an attempted coup.
Brenda said yes two hours before your post so it wasn't that much of a difficult position.
So as the Queen (or King) is merely a figurehead, the UK does not have the protection that a country with a more interventionist monarchy or a president* has.
* Can we ignore the US for now?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 19:21 GMT Teiwaz
Re: This is an attempted coup.
Whilst I don't agree with the pomp and ceremony around the monarchy, the position of a hereditary head of state does mean that we don't suffer to quite the same extent from the problems of short-termism that having an elected president presents (looks over there...)
What we'd end up with would probably end up being more like Ireland than the duress.
God Save Mrs Ethel Shroake
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 13:40 GMT DrXym
The optics don't look good
A prime minister who has never faced a general election, or been chosen by the people is trying to shut down the mother of parliaments to force through a deeply unpopular, economically catastrophic exit from Europe.
I don't see Johnson being looked on kindly by history. I would be amazed if he's even PM within a few months.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 14:17 GMT werdsmith
Re: The optics don't look good
A prime minister who has never faced a general election, or been chosen by the people is trying to shut down the mother of parliaments to force through a deeply unpopular, economically catastrophic exit from Europe.
He's also leading a minority party in government.
I absolutely despair of the way things are going in much of the world and I am looking for a bolt hole so I can just turn my back on it all. I'm at the end of my tether with it all.
I'm going to withdraw into science and academia and I'm just going to try to avoid the ignorance led world that I live in and my home nation has become a central part of.
I'm certain that if we had a better education system in the second half of the 20th century and our people had learned about other nations and become multi-lingual instead of being fed jingoistic lies and borderline propaganda then we would not be in this mess.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The optics don't look good
Well, yes he has: multiple general elections in fact. Parliamentary democracies don't elect governments, they elect MP's who form governments if they can maintain a majority. Someone who presumably just spent the last few hours ranting about how important Parliament is might be expected to know that?
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:18 GMT werdsmith
Re: The optics don't look good
Well, yes he has: multiple general elections in fact.
He didn't face a general election as leader of his party, therefore standing to be prime minister.
And whilst it is correct to state that a voter elects their local MP, we all know that the candidate for PM is at least as important. That's why it's the PM candidates that go around the country visiting constituencies other than their own and why it is PM candidates that that do these nationwide TV debate things.
Because it's the swing votes that gets the PM in number 10 under FPtP constituencies that are borderline, and it's the reason that Labour have been especially ineffective since Corbyn has been leader.
Someone who is voting age might be expected to know that.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:40 GMT Cederic
Re: The optics don't look good
The thing is that although I would hate to have the sexist Lucas, the sexist Swinson or the hateful Corybn as Prime Minister, the reason I wouldn't vote for the Conservatives is that my current MP is conservative, corrrupt, anti-democratic and a cunt besides.
Doesn't really matter who the PM is or isn't, I don't want that man representing me.
-
Friday 30th August 2019 22:41 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: The optics don't look good
"He didn't face a general election as leader of his party, therefore standing to be prime minister."
The first part of that is true, the second, not so much. The party leader of a party which has a majority and can form of government usually becomes the PM, but that's not the law, or even a rule. It's another of those "gentleman's agreements".
-
-
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 15:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The optics don't look good
"A prime minister who has never faced a general election"
The desperate hope that the UK will move to presidential elections doesn't alter the fact we have never had them. It's a media/opposition taunt.
"I don't see Johnson being looked on kindly by history. I would be amazed if he's even PM within a few months."
The UK has spent ~1 year with a deal that UK politicians won't agree to. There is a simple fix - MP's pass a vote of no confidence, take control of the house (again - it's been done already this year), vote to delay leaving (again), ask the EU to delay for an election and go to the people.
This move (an election) is fraught with danger because it will probably result in an outcome. I'm unclear of what that outcome maybe.
As for how Johnson will be judged, that will depend on a lot of things, but action vs May's inaction may provide a way around the current impasse. Personally, I think Corbyn is the one who may come out looking worse - he has controlled the majority opposition party and sat on the fence hoping everyone else would make mistakes he could capitalize on. The mistakes have happened and yet here we are.
-
Wednesday 28th August 2019 16:30 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: The optics don't look good
There is a simple fix - MP's pass a vote of no confidence, take control of the house (again - it's been done already this year), vote to delay leaving (again), ask the EU to delay for an election and go to the people.
The fixed term parliament act states that there is a period after a vote of no confidence where an alternative governement must be formed before a general election is called. The timescales on this are now very tight before parliament is closed.
Does anyone who is better informed than me (or has the time to check) confirm whether parliament now has time to call a vote of no confidence, hold it, form a unity government, and pass primary legislation, before parliament is due to end? Would sucha government have authority to extend parliament until the job is done?
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:05 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: The optics don't look good
Loyal Commenter,
In short, yes. If the government falls, it's no longer in charge of the Parliamentary timetable.
So there's 14 days to form a new government, in which time Johnson remains caretake PM. The Queen will pick someone to be PM who has a chance of commanding a majority. So if say Corbyn could come up with agreement from the Lib Dems, SNP and a hanful of others (including about 5 Conservatives I think) - he could be PM. After passing a subsequent vote of confidence.
That's not likely. So it would have to be a less partisan figure, I suspect. The problem being we don't have a tradition of caretaker governments in that way. But it could be done.
Also Johnson would get a chance to win back his Tory waverers and have a new vote of confidence. Or the Tory party could sack him and appoint someone else as leader, who could win a vote of confidence.
After 14 days of fun-and-games fails Johnson as caretaker PM advises the Queen on when to have an election. It's a minimum of about 4 weeks. The threat being to hold it after the 31st October. I really don't think that would wash, and I suspect the Queen would tell him to get stuffed. Given the subject of the election would be Brexit - that would be taking the piss too much. The Privy Council could be used as constitutional cover for this. I know there's been talk of it, but it's an obvious piss-take. It would probably lose him the election, and the EU could refuse to play ball by granting an extension until after the election date anyway.
Getting a new government doesn't get us very far though. The EU are not offering much in the way of options but sign the withdrawal agreement. Johnson has the best chance of renegotiating the backstop (and my betting is there's no little chance of anything non-cosmetic) at this late stage. I think a new government would struggle to get agreement even for an extension of membership - unless for something very specific that suited the EU too.
The one-sidedness of the backstop, and the EU negotiating teams own undermining of it by saying they could use it to force the UK to stay in the Customs Union indefinitely is the problem. There seems little compromise on offer on this so far. That makes the Withdrawal Agreement extremely unattractive - but it's the only game in town to avoid no deal. Maybe slightly modified? The alternative is to revoke Article 50 (there's unlikely to be time available for a referendum). I don't see Parliament daring to do that.
-
Thursday 29th August 2019 15:26 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: The optics don't look good
The problem of the backstop is really just a cover for the real problem. This comes down to the GFA, which the government seems to have forgotten is an international treaty that binds all signatories (in this case, the then leaders of the UK, and Irish govt, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and the secretary of state for NI).
The GFA states that there will be no border between the Republic of Ireland, and NI. In order for this to happen, there has to be free movement of goods, services, and people between Ireland and NI.
The backstop is in place to prevent this from being breached, by saying that, in the absence of any other arrangement* that preserves the GFA, NI remains in the EU customs union. This is required by the EU to protect the 4 freedoms (movement of people, capital, services, and goods), the foundation of cooperation between all EU member states.
The EU is simply not going to sacrifice the four freedoms for the good of the British government, no matter how loudly we shout, as this would destroy the entire Union, so the possible outcomes I can see are:
- No deal, the UK either accepts free movement from the EU via the NI border (and thus under WTO terms, must accept it globally), or puts up a border and breaches the GFA, whereupon we welcome back domestic terrorism in mainland Britain probably within days.
- May's deal, with the backstop, NI remains in the CU until another solution is found*, with a border down the Irish sea.
- May's deal, with the backstop, the whole UK remains in the CU until another solution is found*
- Extend A50 while we try to come up with something better
- Revoke A50 and concede that the whole idea of leaving the EU was ill thought-out in the first place.
*Nobody has yet been able to come up with what another solution would look like, beyond obviously unworkable non-existent magical technology fixes, or a border-away-from-the-border type fudge.
-
-
-
-
