How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 13)
Discussion
mx5nut said:
Has Boris managed to deliver on any of his threats without being utterly humiliated first?
Is he really the best you could do, Brexiters?
Bit unfair - I'm not a leave voter myself but can see that Boris wouldn't be many people's first choice whatever their preference.Is he really the best you could do, Brexiters?
Despite being most aligned with my own thoughts on the EU, Jo Swinson certainly isn't my first choice in a GE, or second for that matter.
tumble dryer said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
A No 10 source has said there will have to be a general election if the EU offers a delay until the end of January - as the UK has requested.
"On Saturday, Parliament asked for a delay until January and today Parliament blew its last chance.
"If Parliament's delay is agreed by Brussels, then the only way the country can move on is with an election.
"This Parliament is totally broken. The public will have to choose whether they want to get Brexit done with Boris or whether they want to spend 2020 having two referendums on Brexit and Scotland with Corbyn."
Killer reality-check."On Saturday, Parliament asked for a delay until January and today Parliament blew its last chance.
"If Parliament's delay is agreed by Brussels, then the only way the country can move on is with an election.
"This Parliament is totally broken. The public will have to choose whether they want to get Brexit done with Boris or whether they want to spend 2020 having two referendums on Brexit and Scotland with Corbyn."
I get the impression that (those who may be paying half an attention) are witnessing an absolute blinder of a pre GE campaign.
22 pages into volume 13 already, but I want to respond to Tuna from this morning:
The polls show it would be close - so it removes no division, just embeds it.
Are we going to go for a majority+1 and continue the debates on legitimacy? All those saying the original Ref should have been 60/40 are strangely silent on this one.
Yes - majority plus 1.
Some people may whinge that the 2016 vote should have required a super-majority, but so what. It's irrelevant.
The losers consent argument is garbage.
We had a Brexit referendum and voted to leave. We now know what that looks like and a second referendum would ask voters to confirm it is what they want.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK. There is nothing to confirm.
The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.
We already know that some people (e.g. Farage) do not see it as Brexit.
Tuna said:
Elysium said:
You have said many times that a second referendum will cause big problems, but you never explain that view.
Seriously? I've written huge posts on it at regular intervals. Have you had your fingers in your ears, eyes shut, singing "lalala" all this time?The polls show it would be close - so it removes no division, just embeds it.
Are we going to go for a majority+1 and continue the debates on legitimacy? All those saying the original Ref should have been 60/40 are strangely silent on this one.
Yes - majority plus 1.
Some people may whinge that the 2016 vote should have required a super-majority, but so what. It's irrelevant.
Tuna said:
There is still no consensus on what constitutes a fair question - and rightly so as there is no 'fair' question to ask at this point.
I gave you the question. Remain vs the Johnson deal.Tuna said:
It adds months to the already existent delays, and prolongs uncertainty.
If Leave win again we have no evidence whatsoever that 'losers consent' will actually apply this time - in fact a number of MPs have said they'd ignore the result. That's how bad it's got.
My post referred to a pre-legislative referendum, which is what Phil Wilson and Peter Kyle tried to propose earlier this week. As with the alternative vote referendum, the enabling legislation would be drafted in advance, so the referendum result can be immediately enacted into law. If Leave win again we have no evidence whatsoever that 'losers consent' will actually apply this time - in fact a number of MPs have said they'd ignore the result. That's how bad it's got.
The losers consent argument is garbage.
Tuna said:
It still doesn't answer the question of "what kind of leave", or "what kind of Remain" - we continue to have arguments over a 'mandate' for this government to act on.
It precisely answers the 'what kind of leave' question. The 'what kind of remain' one is a false premise. We cannot know what the future holds in either direction.Tuna said:
The argument that we no know more is plainly false when the polls have moved so little.
The polls are constantly moving. We simply do not know where the people are on this. Tuna said:
Over the last three years, millions of pounds have been spent on Remain campaigns - People's Vote, Led By Donkeys, the LibDem campaign. This has been entirely one sided (Leave had no reason to continue campaigning) for most of the time - so the issue of bias and misinformation is huge.
Rubbish. Both leave and remain have continually campaigned. Tuna said:
Whatever the Referendum decides is still dependent on consent and negotiation with the EU, so there's no guarantee it can even be delivered as promised (just as with the original Referendum).
See above. I am talking about a pre-legislative vote on the agreed deal, which requires no further negotiation and could be set up for immediate implementation. Tuna said:
The current government have no obligation to respect a second referendum (or hold one) so we're potentially back in the position of a government having to implement something they don't agree with. And nor are the opposition required to respect it - which in Labour's case means they'll almost certainly continue to commit wrecking amendments.
This is barrier to agreeing a second referendum rather than a reason not to hold one.Tuna said:
If we hold a second ref, the case for an IndyRef becomes hard to argue.
This makes no sense. The one thing that is driving the case for a second indyref is Brexit. We had a Brexit referendum and voted to leave. We now know what that looks like and a second referendum would ask voters to confirm it is what they want.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK. There is nothing to confirm.
Tuna said:
I think those are the main points off the top of my head. In short, if the first Referendum was a bad idea, a second Referendum does not improve matters one jot, regardless of the outcome.
I think you are wrong and I don't thing you have put forward any clear arguments otherwise. The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.
We already know that some people (e.g. Farage) do not see it as Brexit.
Tony427 said:
tumble dryer said:
ELUSIVEJIM said:
A No 10 source has said there will have to be a general election if the EU offers a delay until the end of January - as the UK has requested.
"On Saturday, Parliament asked for a delay until January and today Parliament blew its last chance.
"If Parliament's delay is agreed by Brussels, then the only way the country can move on is with an election.
"This Parliament is totally broken. The public will have to choose whether they want to get Brexit done with Boris or whether they want to spend 2020 having two referendums on Brexit and Scotland with Corbyn."
Killer reality-check."On Saturday, Parliament asked for a delay until January and today Parliament blew its last chance.
"If Parliament's delay is agreed by Brussels, then the only way the country can move on is with an election.
"This Parliament is totally broken. The public will have to choose whether they want to get Brexit done with Boris or whether they want to spend 2020 having two referendums on Brexit and Scotland with Corbyn."
I get the impression that (those who may be paying half an attention) are witnessing an absolute blinder of a pre GE campaign.
Tick-Tock.
Murph7355 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Would you commit not to amend something you haven't read and don't yet fully understand? 
Agree that in some cases there's clearly no intention of voting for it through and presumably those people didn't vote for it.
I'm "the electorate" just as much as people who voted to leave are and I don't want what may be a poor piece of legislation passed in a rush just to meet Boris's self-imposed deadlines.
That damages us all.
It's 100 pages, no? And the bulk of it is the May deal which had plenty of reading time already.Agree that in some cases there's clearly no intention of voting for it through and presumably those people didn't vote for it.
I'm "the electorate" just as much as people who voted to leave are and I don't want what may be a poor piece of legislation passed in a rush just to meet Boris's self-imposed deadlines.
That damages us all.
Getting it read and raising constructive points should be a piece of piss in 3 days. They have nothing else that should be a higher priority...
...IF the intent was to want to actually get this phase done with.
But now it seems Corbyn and his cronies seem to want something written down that binds future governments. Which is an interesting angle.
May had allowed 8 weeks to ratify what you correctly say was a very similar deal. No-one read her withdrawal agreement bill because it was never written.
Murph7355 said:
majordad said:
The UK made a mistake three years ago, now needs to correct it with a second referendum.
And what if said vote returned the same result?Still a mistake?
Would we need another one? What would we call it this time having used up "confirmatory" and "people's"?
If the vote is to remain, then I am sure people like Farage will continue to campaign.
Elysium said:
And yet specialists in EU law are saying that the Bill requires an understanding of almost 500 pages of fairly dense legal text, which they feel will take several weeks to fully work through.
May had allowed 8 weeks to ratify what you correctly say was a very similar deal. No-one read her withdrawal agreement bill because it was never written.
It probably would, as the legal specialists would pore over every sentence in detail.May had allowed 8 weeks to ratify what you correctly say was a very similar deal. No-one read her withdrawal agreement bill because it was never written.
Although I agree that this case is of far more importance than most in the last few years, are you seriously suggesting that MPs read all of the bills they vote on in minutiae and base their judgement after?
Of course they don't, they either vote according to personal opinion or don't even bother turning up.
Elysium said:
22 pages into volume 13 already, but I want to respond to Tuna from this morning:
The polls show it would be close - so it removes no division, just embeds it.
Are we going to go for a majority+1 and continue the debates on legitimacy? All those saying the original Ref should have been 60/40 are strangely silent on this one.
Yes - majority plus 1.
Some people may whinge that the 2016 vote should have required a super-majority, but so what. It's irrelevant.
The losers consent argument is garbage.
We had a Brexit referendum and voted to leave. We now know what that looks like and a second referendum would ask voters to confirm it is what they want.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK. There is nothing to confirm.
The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.
We already know that some people (e.g. Farage) do not see it as Brexit.
let's be honest.Tuna said:
Elysium said:
You have said many times that a second referendum will cause big problems, but you never explain that view.
Seriously? I've written huge posts on it at regular intervals. Have you had your fingers in your ears, eyes shut, singing "lalala" all this time?The polls show it would be close - so it removes no division, just embeds it.
Are we going to go for a majority+1 and continue the debates on legitimacy? All those saying the original Ref should have been 60/40 are strangely silent on this one.
Yes - majority plus 1.
Some people may whinge that the 2016 vote should have required a super-majority, but so what. It's irrelevant.
Tuna said:
There is still no consensus on what constitutes a fair question - and rightly so as there is no 'fair' question to ask at this point.
I gave you the question. Remain vs the Johnson deal.Tuna said:
It adds months to the already existent delays, and prolongs uncertainty.
If Leave win again we have no evidence whatsoever that 'losers consent' will actually apply this time - in fact a number of MPs have said they'd ignore the result. That's how bad it's got.
My post referred to a pre-legislative referendum, which is what Phil Wilson and Peter Kyle tried to propose earlier this week. As with the alternative vote referendum, the enabling legislation would be drafted in advance, so the referendum result can be immediately enacted into law. If Leave win again we have no evidence whatsoever that 'losers consent' will actually apply this time - in fact a number of MPs have said they'd ignore the result. That's how bad it's got.
The losers consent argument is garbage.
Tuna said:
It still doesn't answer the question of "what kind of leave", or "what kind of Remain" - we continue to have arguments over a 'mandate' for this government to act on.
It precisely answers the 'what kind of leave' question. The 'what kind of remain' one is a false premise. We cannot know what the future holds in either direction.Tuna said:
The argument that we no know more is plainly false when the polls have moved so little.
The polls are constantly moving. We simply do not know where the people are on this. Tuna said:
Over the last three years, millions of pounds have been spent on Remain campaigns - People's Vote, Led By Donkeys, the LibDem campaign. This has been entirely one sided (Leave had no reason to continue campaigning) for most of the time - so the issue of bias and misinformation is huge.
Rubbish. Both leave and remain have continually campaigned. Tuna said:
Whatever the Referendum decides is still dependent on consent and negotiation with the EU, so there's no guarantee it can even be delivered as promised (just as with the original Referendum).
See above. I am talking about a pre-legislative vote on the agreed deal, which requires no further negotiation and could be set up for immediate implementation. Tuna said:
The current government have no obligation to respect a second referendum (or hold one) so we're potentially back in the position of a government having to implement something they don't agree with. And nor are the opposition required to respect it - which in Labour's case means they'll almost certainly continue to commit wrecking amendments.
This is barrier to agreeing a second referendum rather than a reason not to hold one.Tuna said:
If we hold a second ref, the case for an IndyRef becomes hard to argue.
This makes no sense. The one thing that is driving the case for a second indyref is Brexit. We had a Brexit referendum and voted to leave. We now know what that looks like and a second referendum would ask voters to confirm it is what they want.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK. There is nothing to confirm.
Tuna said:
I think those are the main points off the top of my head. In short, if the first Referendum was a bad idea, a second Referendum does not improve matters one jot, regardless of the outcome.
I think you are wrong and I don't thing you have put forward any clear arguments otherwise. The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.
We already know that some people (e.g. Farage) do not see it as Brexit.
The majority of voterS in the uk have no idea what Boris's deal means.
They have as much understanding of Einstein's law of relativity as they do Boris's deal.
ie bugger all.
So your last point is irrelevant realky.
Who thinks that Boris has secured enough votes for a Tory majority in the event of an election?
He has to persuade a load of Brexit Party voters to get behind him rather than Farage, and perhaps more difficult, persuade people who would normally vote for a dog if it had a red rosette on to vote Conservative rather than the Brexit Party.
Interesting times ahead.
He has to persuade a load of Brexit Party voters to get behind him rather than Farage, and perhaps more difficult, persuade people who would normally vote for a dog if it had a red rosette on to vote Conservative rather than the Brexit Party.
Interesting times ahead.
ash73 said:
OzzyR1 said:
Who thinks that Boris has secured enough votes for a Tory majority in the event of an election?
Yes, but I can't see how he will get a GE.It might be that we see the bizarre situation of Boris calling a vote of no confidence in his own government.
Labour would then be forced into a situation where they have to back the VONC or actually go against it and say that the Opposition do have confidence in the Government despite having demanded an election every week for the last 3 years.
Crazy.
NoNeed said:
ash73 said:
OzzyR1 said:
Who thinks that Boris has secured enough votes for a Tory majority in the event of an election?
Yes, but I can't see how he will get a GE.Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
OzzyR1 said:
NoNeed said:
ash73 said:
OzzyR1 said:
Who thinks that Boris has secured enough votes for a Tory majority in the event of an election?
Yes, but I can't see how he will get a GE.Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
Meanwhile
OzzyR1 said:
Nah, see what I said above.
Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
I wonder if Corbyn would whip against that vote? Or perhaps his more desperate MP's would vote for it anyway to ensure an early release from captivity in the momentum Gulag. A blessed release in some way. Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
Tony427 said:
OzzyR1 said:
Nah, see what I said above.
Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
I wonder if Corbyn would whip against that vote? Or perhaps his more desperate MP's would vote for it anyway to ensure an early release from captivity in the momentum Gulag. A blessed release in some way. Even if he doesn't go down the VONC route (which I think he may attempt if he thinks he can make Corbyn look even more daft than already), there are other easier routes than via the EU.
He could introduce a very short law that calls for an election and adds "notwithstanding the Fixed-term Parliaments Act", advantage being it requires a simple majority of MPs to support it rather than two-thirds.
He would probably get that through.
ash73 said:
Looks like it depends on the power struggle between Corbyn and McDonnell/Starmer.
Corbyn wants a GE, Starmer wants a second referendum.
I agree it would be humiliating for Labour to block a VONC; but at this stage they probably think the end justifies the means.
You reckon? I'd say the opposite.Corbyn wants a GE, Starmer wants a second referendum.
I agree it would be humiliating for Labour to block a VONC; but at this stage they probably think the end justifies the means.
Elysium said:
The primary case for a confirmatory vote is that we have absolutely no idea if the Johnson deal is what the 2016 leave voters wanted. In the interests of democracy we should check before we take the irreversible step of implementing it.
Well, given that every post you've made in these threads is on the basis that regardless of the question the answer is a Second Referendum, your response comes as no surprise.I note that your unchanging call for a second referendum never depended on a deal being available, but is now upgraded to a 'confirmatory vote'. Hmmm...
Rather than go through your response disagreeing with your assertions (you blandly proclaim that Remain vs. Boris Deal is an acceptable question despite the many arguments from many different factions over what question can be taken to the public), I'll just say your opinion is yours, not mine
And the core problem with your final statement (above) is that you're asking the 'ignorant', 'xenophobic', 'biased' public to make a technical decision - not on an actual final trade agreement with the EU, but on the terms under which that trade agreement will be made. Most people can't even understand that this is not 'the deal' - it's not even heads of terms for a trade agreement - and you want people to vote on it? How is that meaningful?
A busy evening for you guys.
I think good progress was made in parliament yesterday. It confirmed that despite what leavers may claim they are not opposing brexit because they supported the Bill. But it must be undertaken in an orderly and effective manner as is their responsibility.
I can't see the EU not agreeing to a further extension. I see some comments about a 'flextension' but we already have that. A50 allows for the UK to leave with a WA before the deadline where no deal applies. The extension just moves the deadline but not the ability to leave earlier. Parliament remains opposed to leaving without a deal and that isn't going to change without a GE.
Three months should be sufficient to get the job done if there isn't a GE, longer if there is.
How much has the Government wasted on it's 31st October adverts though?
I think good progress was made in parliament yesterday. It confirmed that despite what leavers may claim they are not opposing brexit because they supported the Bill. But it must be undertaken in an orderly and effective manner as is their responsibility.
I can't see the EU not agreeing to a further extension. I see some comments about a 'flextension' but we already have that. A50 allows for the UK to leave with a WA before the deadline where no deal applies. The extension just moves the deadline but not the ability to leave earlier. Parliament remains opposed to leaving without a deal and that isn't going to change without a GE.
Three months should be sufficient to get the job done if there isn't a GE, longer if there is.
How much has the Government wasted on it's 31st October adverts though?
Stay in Bed Instead said:
A busy evening for you guys.
I think good progress was made in parliament yesterday. It confirmed that despite what leavers may claim they are not opposing brexit because they supported the Bill. But it must be undertaken in an orderly and effective manner as is their responsibility.
I can't see the EU not agreeing to a further extension. I see some comments about a 'flextension' but we already have that. A50 allows for the UK to leave with a WA before the deadline where no deal applies. The extension just moves the deadline but not the ability to leave earlier. Parliament remains opposed to leaving without a deal and that isn't going to change without a GE.
Three months should be sufficient to get the job done if there isn't a GE, longer if there is.
How much has the Government wasted on it's 31st October adverts though?
And they won’t give up, they’re still everywhereI think good progress was made in parliament yesterday. It confirmed that despite what leavers may claim they are not opposing brexit because they supported the Bill. But it must be undertaken in an orderly and effective manner as is their responsibility.
I can't see the EU not agreeing to a further extension. I see some comments about a 'flextension' but we already have that. A50 allows for the UK to leave with a WA before the deadline where no deal applies. The extension just moves the deadline but not the ability to leave earlier. Parliament remains opposed to leaving without a deal and that isn't going to change without a GE.
Three months should be sufficient to get the job done if there isn't a GE, longer if there is.
How much has the Government wasted on it's 31st October adverts though?
OzzyR1 said:
He can't do it himself as that would require 2/3rd's of MP's to vote for it - Labour wouldn't back it
It might be that we see the bizarre situation of Boris calling a vote of no confidence in his own government.
Labour would then be forced into a situation where they have to back the VONC or actually go against it and say that the Opposition do have confidence in the Government despite having demanded an election every week for the last 3 years.
Crazy.
Just wonder about the Labour rebels on that score. Corbyn said he was withdrawing the whip I believe. If so has his chance of forming a government completely gone and so if the Conservatives stand down then there is automatically no government capable of being formed?It might be that we see the bizarre situation of Boris calling a vote of no confidence in his own government.
Labour would then be forced into a situation where they have to back the VONC or actually go against it and say that the Opposition do have confidence in the Government despite having demanded an election every week for the last 3 years.
Crazy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff