[Politics] Brexit

[CHAPPERS]

It's tough to do that with Parliament in recess though...

Superb timing for Johnson. I just don't know how they managed to time it like that.....

 

[Thunder Bolt]

irrelevant right now as they are sitting on their hands, too scared to act. brexit is default, so if no one does anything, we leave. instead of coordinating a response to halt this with legislation, opposition and parliament prattle on about 2nd referedums, motions of confidence, letters to the civil service to say its not fair.

Parliament sits again 3rd September and there is already a vote of no confidence tabled. Johnson's majority is just 1. Obviously there are some Labour MPs who may rebel, but there are also Tories who will too.

 

[ManOfSussex]

With The Premier League starting today, there's an interview in the sport section of The Times of London with none other than Graham Potter which contains this nugget:

“I remember studying the EU, the checks and balances of how it all worked and the various institutions within the EU and I remember thinking, ‘Wow, this is complex and I’m glad that I don’t have to decide what we’re doing with this,’ and then years later we had to decide,” he says.

What did Potter decide was best, to be in or out of Europe? “Neither. I was in Sweden and focusing on my job there and I thought, ‘Good luck with that.’ ”

Now that he is back in the UK, how does he feel about Brexit?

“I’d rather us be part of Europe if I’m honest.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...and-the-lads-would-hammer-me-for-it-slpdtpjsq

I get the impression he wouldn't have voted for The Brexit Party in May.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Parliament sits again 3rd September and there is already a vote of no confidence tabled. Johnson's majority is just 1. Obviously there are some Labour MPs who may rebel, but there are also Tories who will too.

Point of order if I may .... nothings been tabled yet ( it can't be while in recess ) but Comrade Corbyn is hinting at tabling it 'quickly' when they return on the 3rd. In reality the vote can't take place before the 4th.

 

[Baldseagull]

Far too many points to respond to each one and most have been debated to death already but I pick up the European Parliamnet Act bit.

I agree, as things stand, any changes would have to go to referendum but this act can be revoked by any government - lets say, heaven forbid, the Lib Dems managed to form a government in their own right ( unlikely I know ! ) - I wouldn't trust them not to revoke it. Equally, lets say one of these referendums was held - how can we trust a government to abide by it ? I'll use the 2016 referendum as an example !

Just as an observation, we belong to two unions - the UK and the EU. One union has spent years moving power back towards the people - devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and sometimes NI - mayors for major cities and more powers devolved to local councils. All making easier for.people to influence outcomes. Yet by it's very nature the EU moves power further away from the person in the street - in centralises it in Brussels, and when they get bored of Brussels they move the power to Stratsburg. It's almost as though both unions are travelling in completely different directions.

I typed the wrong thing in my earlier post, it is the European Union Act, not European Parliament Act, apologies. Though it is possible, it would be a very bold Government that took that away, they would be saying we are reducing your democratic powers as voters, I can't see it happening.
The 2016 referendum was advisory only, the European Union act makes any referendum conducted under its requirements one third of the approval needed to sign up to any treaty changes with the EU, it is controversial legislation because of the fact it cedes some sovereignty from Parliament to the electorate. If the referendum said Yes, sign up to the next treaty, the House of commons/and or the house of Lords could block it and not sign, but if the referendum said no, even if both houses of Parliament wanted to sign up, they could not.

In the UK we have started our democracy from the point of rule of kings, and over the centuries power was ceded through civil war, protest and threat of revolution to the point where we all now have a vote once we turn 18, and the power of the Monarch is reduced. The EU is starting at the opposite end of the spectrum of there being no overall governance, it is impossible to go from having no powers to devolving powers, it has to accrue them at some time and up to some level. We might disagree about what powers the EU should have, but as things stand, they cannot gain any more from the UK without our say so. I can't think of any powers the EU has that are powers my local council could have, or any that would work better if each State legislated for individually, so I disagree that they are taking powers further away from the person on the street, what is or isn't Extra Virgin Olive Oil, is not something that each state should have a different version of, it makes sense to have an agreed definition in as wide a population as possible, and legal redress against people who misrepresent their products as something it is not. I can't think of a power the EU has that makes more sense to be locally decided, or made at State level.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Point of order if I may .... nothings been tabled yet ( it can't be while in recess ) but Comrade Corbyn is hinting at tabling it 'quickly' when they return on the 3rd. In reality the vote can't take place before the 4th.

Jo Swinson tabled it before the summer recess.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Johnson is going to sidestep it anyway. No confidence vote does not affect 31st October No Deal deadline.

 

[beorhthelm]

Parliament sits again 3rd September and there is already a vote of no confidence tabled. Johnson's majority is just 1. Obviously there are some Labour MPs who may rebel, but there are also Tories who will too.

trouble is a vote of confidence is just for the gallery. the government could continue even if they lost, at least long enough that a subsequent election occured over the end of October. hence why Corbyn writing letters to say this would be undemocratic, he'd rather talk about a theoretical consequence of undetermined outcome, than act directly. the time spent on motions of confidence or other maneuvers would be better spent on legislation to instruct government to delay or stop brexit. they dont have the courage or coordination for this. the brexiteers know this and pushing for the hard exit to so that or adjusted WA are the only options open in the run up to the 31st Octobber.

 

[Baldseagull]

You see - you're believing your own hypebole. Despite you suggesting it was the EU that was the enabler to the European Parliament Act it wasn't - it was an entirely UK developed, written and passed act - no EU involvement what so ever. They made a glib promise to CMD that 'ever closer union' could exclude the UK but no act was ever passed at EU parliament level to make it hard and fast.

As for your implication on 'no deal' - I'd prefer a deal - I've never support an out and out no deal regardless but I'm prepared to accept a no deal over remaining if a deal can't be struck - which appears to be the situation we're now in.

The European Union stated that it was already the case that ever closer union was not an instruction, it is an aim of the EU, but to make Cameron happy, if we had voted to remain in the referendum, they would have had it written in explicitly that the UK was not required to make steps towards closer union. There was nothing done because we voted leave, but in any case, it was just a bit of clarification of what the status quo is, rather than any new deal.

 

[beorhthelm]

The European Union stated that it was already the case that ever closer union was not an instruction, it is an aim of the EU, but to make Cameron happy, if we had voted to remain in the referendum, they would have had it written in explicitly that the UK was not required to make steps towards closer union. There was nothing done because we voted leave, but in any case, it was just a bit of clarification of what the status quo is, rather than any new deal.

so your contention is that the EU guaranteed that UK would not be required to sign up to any further integration, if we didnt agree.

what happens when other countries say they want the same? play it through, how would this really work out, leads to two tier future EU. many would sign up to that, including on the continent, and the result of the referendum here would have been very different.

 

[A1X]

Wouldn't that just mean EFTA, which is what many who voted for Leave (I would argue more than who voted for No Deal) actually wanted to see?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

trouble is a vote of confidence is just for the gallery. the government could continue even if they lost, at least long enough that a subsequent election occured over the end of October. hence why Corbyn writing letters to say this would be undemocratic, he'd rather talk about a theoretical consequence of undetermined outcome, than act directly. the time spent on motions of confidence or other maneuvers would be better spent on legislation to instruct government to delay or stop brexit. they dont have the courage or coordination for this. the brexiteers know this and pushing for the hard exit to so that or adjusted WA are the only options open in the run up to the 31st Octobber.

Who knew that taking back control only applied to one person and his cronies?

 

[beorhthelm]

Wouldn't that just mean EFTA, which is what many who voted for Leave (I would argue more than who voted for No Deal) actually wanted to see?

pretty much. a block focused on trade seperate to the core furthering political integration.

 

[Eeyore]

Johnson is going to sidestep it anyway. No confidence vote does not affect 31st October No Deal deadline.

It could IF the opposition and some Tories got together to form a 'national unity' government with the singular purpose of preventing 'No deal'.

Ken Clarke at the helm would be a possible enticement.

Of course, such bipartisan arrangements are beyond any political parties in government except, perhaps, the Liberal Democrats.

 

[Baldseagull]

so your contention is that the EU guaranteed that UK would not be required to sign up to any further integration, if we didnt agree.

what happens when other countries say they want the same? play it through, how would this really work out, leads to two tier future EU. many would sign up to that, including on the continent, and the result of the referendum here would have been very different.

There has been talk of a two speed EU for a long while, the consensus is that it is better to all go together at the same pace though.
As far as I am aware, the situation is the same for all others, there is no absolute requirement to sign up to any future treaties, and failing to do so would not diminish the agreements held in the current Treaty, there might be different obligations on the accession countries in some aspects, like taking the Euro at some point, but that is contained in the treaties that they are already signed up to.
At the moment, if a new treaty came about, and one or more countries refused to sign up to it, there would be attempts to revise it so as it became acceptable to those countries. If that was not possible, then the EU would either shelve that treaty, or re write it to exclude those members from the new obligations, and create the two speed situation you mention.

The EU will resist having a two speed way forward, but it may be that at some point in the future a core group are so keen to integrate further that they push for that, regardless of whether all come with them or not. The difficulty will come if being outside of a new treaty, but still a member of the Customs Union and the single market could give a country a competitive advantage over those in it. One power that I think the EU should have, but the UK would resist, is the setting of minimum and maximum corporation tax rates, that is something that could not happen at two speeds, it would have to be all on the same rules, but creation of an EU health service could be.

 

[beorhthelm]

There has been talk of a two speed EU for a long while, the consensus is that it is better to all go together at the same pace though.
As far as I am aware, the situation is the same for all others, there is no absolute requirement to sign up to any future treaties, and failing to do so would not diminish the agreements held in the current Treaty, there might be different obligations on the accession countries in some aspects, like taking the Euro at some point, but that is contained in the treaties that they are already signed up to.
At the moment, if a new treaty came about, and one or more countries refused to sign up to it, there would be attempts to revise it so as it became acceptable to those countries. If that was not possible, then the EU would either shelve that treaty, or re write it to exclude those members from the new obligations, and create the two speed situation you mention.

The EU will resist having a two speed way forward, but it may be that at some point in the future a core group are so keen to integrate further that they push for that, regardless of whether all come with them or not. The difficulty will come if being outside of a new treaty, but still a member of the Customs Union and the single market could give a country a competitive advantage over those in it. One power that I think the EU should have, but the UK would resist, is the setting of minimum and maximum corporation tax rates, that is something that could not happen at two speeds, it would have to be all on the same rules, but creation of an EU health service could be.

you see and understand the issues, they are gradually working towards this.

 

[cuthbert]

It could IF the opposition and some Tories got together to form a 'national unity' government with the singular purpose of preventing 'No deal'.

Ken Clarke at the helm would be a possible enticement.

Of course, such bipartisan arrangements are beyond any political parties in government except, perhaps, the Liberal Democrats.

I do agree that IF there is a "National Unity" government the best option would be a Conservative leader, however, I think Ken is a bit too old now for the job. I can't think of a good alternative though. 'm not a Conservative voter but they did get more seats than any other party at the last general election.

 

[A1X]

pretty much. a block focused on trade seperate to the core furthering political integration.

So why aren't the Brexiters parading this option round the streets as the Brexit which works?

 

[A1X]

[TWEET]1159103793906311176[/TWEET]

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

You don't half make things up !

But that's what you argued.