How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Speed 3 said:

Speed 3 said:

My prediction:

EU will grant a “final” 3-month extension (Macron won’t allow anything further)
Bill will get bogged down in HoP debate, become unrecognisable from what is agreed in principle with EU
GE will be called before xmas (Government no confidence vote in itself if necessary)
Con/BP coalition win majority on a ticket of “just get it done”
We leave on 31/1/20 on whatever heads of terms the coalition agrees with each other to form a majority with/without EU agreement
We spend the next 15 years trying to get the actual deal done

Wheels in motion.....

bbc said:

The government will abandon its Brexit bill if MPs vote down its three-day timetable to get it through Parliament.

A No 10 source said if the programme was rejected and the EU confirmed a delay to 31 October UK exit, it would instead push for a general election.

The source told the BBC: "We won't waste further months with this Parliament."

Boris has confirmed this in Parliament.

[vdn]

Pan Pan Pan said:

vdn said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Fortunately not all remainers are anti democrats, so what this really comes down to is a competition, between those who believe in, and respect democracy, and those anti democrats who believe that democracy is only where it gives them the result they want, regardless of the result of any democratic vote held in the country.

That’s one view - another is that an electorate has a right to change its mind. May tried her deal how many times? But after three years, people are not given a choice on this WA.

I know a handful of people who have changed their minds (both ways). Some people have changed their mind; fact. How many? We don’t know. Hence the argument for a second ref’.

I was a Leaver but do not agree with this WA. You’re telling me I’m anti democratic to want a say?

As with many things; this isn’t black and white; it’s nuanced.

Cannot disagree with that, People have the right to change their minds, the question is how often, every day, every week month or year?
The country however cannot be governed with referenda every few weeks, or with people changing their minds in quick succession
What is black and white however is the representative government giving the people of the UK the first and only referendum in over 23 years they have ever been given on the matter of the UK`s membership of the EU, and stating in black and white that they would abide by the result of that referendum.
What is black and white is that people should believe in, and respect democracy, even when a vote does not go the way that they wanted it to.
I would have no problem with the UK having another vote, in say 10 years time, to see if they want to stay out of, or go back into the EU, but to immediately start calling for another referendum, when the result of the first has not been enacted, is not democracy at all.
It is just a case of those who did not get the result they wanted in 2016 trying to overturn that democratic result, and it cannot be disguised as being anything other than that.
What is black and white is that people either respect democracy or they do not, there cannot be a grey area in-between.

Hmmm; many points to address but in short, an example; what if the vote did go your way but you’ve seen the shambles / crap deal and have changed your mind... what if you want a no deal exit but are forced to accept this WA? A barrier to trade between NI and the rest of UK is a fail in my opinion; simply not acceptable.

It’s not just remainders that want a second ref; their motives are obvious.

And you’re saying you have no problem with people changing their minds after ten years? Time is a less a factor than evidence. I have no issue with someone changing their mind the very next day; if they see exactly what is in front of them. A day; a year ... irrelevant.

This deal is not what Leavers voted for. Some might accept it; but it’s not what people voted for. Fact. It was never said there’d be a trade border within the UK. This is not what remainers want (of course)... and so...

[C4ME]

Enjoying the HoC debate. Boris comes across well at the dispatch box.

[Murph7355]

Bussolini said:

So basically you are afraid the electorate would vote Remain.

The real solution is to revoke the Article 50 notification and be done with this nonsense.

Of losing any second vote? No. That's your supposition.

Of it causing even deeper rifts and political issues in this country? Yes. Very much so. Pretty much no matter which way the vote went short of a 100% vote one of the ways with a bigger turnout to 2016. As I alluded to.

The indecision and bullst going on in Parliament is doing far more harm to this country than even the hardest of hard Brexits would have. I laughed at people (Remainers) bemoaning that we had become a laughing stock on voting out...they now have a point (though ironically I suspect many won't quite see it that way now ).

Revoking Art50 and expecting it to solve anything is risible (I thought Remainers felt it's Leavers who are thick? More irony).

I go the other way on this, of course. The ONLY solution to this is to enact the Leaving motion deal or no deal as at 31st October (should have been 29th March). Then crack on with a GE.

If a party wins on a manifesto of taking us back in, then so be it. I have no doubt the EU would welcome us back and all Remainers wouldn't care less what the terms were (;)). If there's then another GE and we want out, so be that to. Until people/the EU get bored if required. But that's the mechanism required IMO. Or we have a complete change of the way we are governed and allow for referenda on such topics in a more structured way.

And please don't give me the line of "but that wasn't what people voted for". Tell me what sort of remain you voted for - the range across the 16.1m people will have spanned everything from balls deep federal unification to "don't really want to remain at all but don't trust our MPs to enact it", and every colour inbetween. So unless you can give proof positive that there was only one type of Remain every Remainer voted for, I suggest you shut your noise about revocation

[JagLover]

abzmike said:

They might not get the opportunity to waste futher months with Parliament. I seem to recall Mrs May held an election to strengthen her mandate, and that didn't quite work out as well as she hoped.

It either will or it wont.

But at least the next parliament should have fewer members elected on false manifestos.

[bitchstewie]

abzmike said:

Speed 3 said:

BBC - The source told the BBC: "We won't waste further months with this Parliament."

They might not get the opportunity to waste futher months with Parliament. I seem to recall Mrs May held an election to strengthen her mandate, and that didn't quite work out as well as she hoped.

I don't quite understand how "the source" thinks the Government can force an election?

Don't get me wrong, extension secured and all of Corbyn and the others excuses fall away and reasons for not wanting one are simple as JFC.

But it's an odd thing to say, when it's literally not in their hands.

[Peter911]

Out of curiosity, after 3 1/2 years and goodness how many volumes, has anyone changed their viewpoint?

[bitchstewie]

Peter911 said:

Out of curiosity, after 3 1/2 years and goodness how many volumes, has anyone changed their viewpoint?

Overall no, I'd still vote to remain as it stands.

But I'd say I'm more open to understanding and agreeing with some of the reasons for wanting to leave.

[Murph7355]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

They simply cannot bring themselves to potentially hand the keys to no. 10 to Corbyn without a GE.

There is nothing stopping the Government bringing a motion of confidence in itself.

Why would they? And why would that in any way be quality democracy in action?

The FTPA is a shining example of poor legislation. If the current government cannot hold the confidence of the house, and cannot form a government that can, then the recourse should be back out to the electorate for a GE. How on earth legislation passed that allowed the potential of "someone else" (anyone else) forming the government without us having a direct say I do not know.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

Peter911 said:

Out of curiosity, after 3 1/2 years and goodness how many volumes, has anyone changed their viewpoint?

Tuna has, allegedly.

[Scootersp]

vdn said:

That’s one view - another is that an electorate has a right to change its mind. May tried her deal how many times? But after three years, people are not given a choice on this WA.

I know a handful of people who have changed their minds (both ways). Some people have changed their mind; fact. How many? We don’t know. Hence the argument for a second ref’.

I was a Leaver but do not agree with this WA. You’re telling me I’m anti democratic to want a say?

As with many things; this isn’t black and white; it’s nuanced.

Well I think that the leave vote is one thing, and then any subsequent arguments could be about how we leave (since it was so unexpected by parliament at least) but should not in my opinion have any remain type options. So you are not being anti democratic to want a say now on the type of deal, but they don't often give us a direct say and so we may be out of luck. That would be democratic though in my mind, leave won but widespread acceptance wasn't encouraged by our government, they stirred up the nation and remained remainers, rather than announcing that the electorate had spoken and from this point on we shall just now debate on what that type of leave this entails. If the government couldn't decide which type, then we have another vote on how much we break all ties with the EU, then you could vote for a certain deal and other similarly.

I just don't feel the original result should be ignored/reversed before it's happened and feel that the whole of parliament has helped perpetuate the issue.

We get told by them all the time what to pay and do, via bills/laws/budgets, they ask us once for a decision as they are a bit 'stuck' and then many many of them willfully ignore it and will not put aside their personal views and carry out the result. From now on why should we all follow their results voted for in the house?

That recent letwin vote 322 for 306 against 21 abstained.....the for's got less than 50% (including abstentions) 51.3% (discounting abstentions) so close to the referendum result, can we not bleat on about this then, just not accept it? apparently not as it stopped proceedings in there tracks.

All parties should have presented a Brexit united front after the surprise vote, but with such a large proportion of the electorate being remainers they sat on the fence a bit scared of losing voters if the all party united front didn't materialise (and when other than perhaps in a war scenario when do they all come together? - just seemingly always oppose each other by default), all scared to commit first and just do the right thing, and then the Lib dem's did a shameful desperation tactic of committing to remain 100%, a whole political party happy to ignore the result of one of the highest turn outs for a democratic vote here ever, in the quest for a few extra seats? It just validates all the remainers that want to turn it around completely too.

[Murph7355]

JagLover said:

Which was always the aim of the Letwin (Pannick) amendment.

As a result I think it is pointless getting worked up about the vote this week. The government will likely end up having to pull the vote.

Bingo.

The results of all the votes Johnson has "lost" are meaningless. The end game is what is needed. And thus far opponents of leaving in the house have no navigable path to their end game. That is why we're in this unholy mess.

[abzmike]

bhstewie said:

I don't quite understand how "the source" thinks the Government can force an election?

Don't get me wrong, extension secured and all of Corbyn and the others excuses fall away and reasons for not wanting one are simple as JFC.

But it's an odd thing to say, when it's literally not in their hands.

Yes quite. If the Tories are so sure they will win a majority, why would Corbyn give them the opportunity? Correct me if I am wrong but even if the government engineers to lose a VONC then the fixed term parliament act still applies, which needs (I think) 60% to vote yes? Even including the SNP and LDs that will be tough if Labour don't want to give the Tories a way out, despite the clamour that will erupt for an election.

[Murph7355]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

It's quite the opposite actually.

It forced Boris to actually get a new deal, whereas his original plan was to run down the clock and blame the EU.

In your opinion. Contrary to anything he ever uttered on the subject.

This is ANOther facet of this debacle end to end...people thinking they know what people really mean despite actually saying something else. Accusations of guilt before anything has actually landed and thus making it impossible to make a valid judgement, just endless bickering. It's moronic (on all sides).

[PositronicRay]

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Peter911 said:

Out of curiosity, after 3 1/2 years and goodness how many volumes, has anyone changed their viewpoint?

Tuna has, allegedly.

I have, started as a leaver, voted remain and still think remain was the best option.

[Tuna]

jsf said:

PositronicRay said:

stongle said:

As for the remainer position / revisionist / denier, last Saturdays march may as well been:



The whole world is waiting for commonsense to break out.

She did get there though, sorted out the wicked ol Queen, and wound up back in Kansas with toto.

She never left Kansas.

Leave vs' Remain perspective in one simple thread

[soupdragon1]

Murph7355 said:

Bussolini said:

So basically you are afraid the electorate would vote Remain.

The real solution is to revoke the Article 50 notification and be done with this nonsense.

Of losing any second vote? No. That's your supposition.

Of it causing even deeper rifts and political issues in this country? Yes. Very much so. Pretty much no matter which way the vote went short of a 100% vote one of the ways with a bigger turnout to 2016. As I alluded to.

The indecision and bullst going on in Parliament is doing far more harm to this country than even the hardest of hard Brexits would have. I laughed at people (Remainers) bemoaning that we had become a laughing stock on voting out...they now have a point (though ironically I suspect many won't quite see it that way now ).

Revoking Art50 and expecting it to solve anything is risible (I thought Remainers felt it's Leavers who are thick? More irony).

I go the other way on this, of course. The ONLY solution to this is to enact the Leaving motion deal or no deal as at 31st October (should have been 29th March). Then crack on with a GE.

If a party wins on a manifesto of taking us back in, then so be it. I have no doubt the EU would welcome us back and all Remainers wouldn't care less what the terms were (;)). If there's then another GE and we want out, so be that to. Until people/the EU get bored if required. But that's the mechanism required IMO. Or we have a complete change of the way we are governed and allow for referenda on such topics in a more structured way.

And please don't give me the line of "but that wasn't what people voted for". Tell me what sort of remain you voted for - the range across the 16.1m people will have spanned everything from balls deep federal unification to "don't really want to remain at all but don't trust our MPs to enact it", and every colour inbetween. So unless you can give proof positive that there was only one type of Remain every Remainer voted for, I suggest you shut your noise about revocation

A 2nd referendum is needed so as to make the question like it should have been when the 1st referendum was called.

If I go into a little cafe and order cheese on toast, if they bring me out some toast with that melted blue cheese st that smells like a pensioners jumper, damn sure I'll be telling them that's not what I ordered.

The 1st referendum question was a complete shambles - cart before the horse. I only like cheddar cheese (extra mature) on my toast, melted until its starts to slightly bubble, with a gentle brown tinge on it. These things need to be verified before the order can take place. The fact we weren't even told what was on the menu when we voted 2016 ( as you clearly highlight above for both remain and leave) we just need to start again and confirm a new order.

[JagLover]

abzmike said:

bhstewie said:

I don't quite understand how "the source" thinks the Government can force an election?

Don't get me wrong, extension secured and all of Corbyn and the others excuses fall away and reasons for not wanting one are simple as JFC.

But it's an odd thing to say, when it's literally not in their hands.

Yes quite. If the Tories are so sure they will win a majority, why would Corbyn give them the opportunity? Correct me if I am wrong but even if the government engineers to lose a VONC then the fixed term parliament act still applies, which needs (I think) 60% to vote yes? Even including the SNP and LDs that will be tough if Labour don't want to give the Tories a way out, despite the clamour that will erupt for an election.

No

An alternative government has to be formed within 14 days otherwise there is an election. Both the Lib Dems and SNP are heading for likely gains in a fresh election so, whilst they want to stop Brexit, they don't have common cause with Labour otherwise.

[SpeckledJim]

abzmike said:

bhstewie said:

I don't quite understand how "the source" thinks the Government can force an election?

Don't get me wrong, extension secured and all of Corbyn and the others excuses fall away and reasons for not wanting one are simple as JFC.

But it's an odd thing to say, when it's literally not in their hands.

Yes quite. If the Tories are so sure they will win a majority, why would Corbyn give them the opportunity? Correct me if I am wrong but even if the government engineers to lose a VONC then the fixed term parliament act still applies, which needs (I think) 60% to vote yes? Even including the SNP and LDs that will be tough if Labour don't want to give the Tories a way out, despite the clamour that will erupt for an election.

Because one of the key points of being in opposition is believing that you can do a better job should you get the chance.

If you believe that, then you should believe that you can convince the country.

The Labour front bench doesn't believe it, though. I don't think they believe they could do a better job, and they're damned sure they can't persuade the country that they can.

So they have no choice but to prop up and support the zombie Tory government and pretend that what they're doing isn't utterly utterly shameful.

Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 22 October 14:54

[BlackTails]

Pan Pan Pan said:

People have the right to change their minds, the question is how often, every day, every week month or year?

It is not about the frequency of changing minds. It's about whether the factors that formed the basis of original decision have changed sufficiently that it is fair that the decision is re-opened.