The Brexit Thread

[San Bernardhinault]

Yet here we are, still in the EU. A deal isn't going to happen, because no one wants the only one available, and the EU aren't going to negotiate any further. No deal isn't going to happen, because there isn't the will in Parliament, and short of having no further votes, or proroguing (both of which Bercow has stated he will not allow to happen). What options are left? Having a second referendum to keep the money rolling in for Amber Rudd's brother, and letting this shit run on until next summer?

I have to say that I see this as ridiculously optimistic.

We are in a situation where we are dependent on Boris Johnson. And, specifically, on what Boris Johnson decides are in his personal best interests. We are depending on him having the common sense to see that the public in a general election would freak out if he let the time run out on Article 50 in October.

That we're dependent on the whims of Boris Johnson doesn't speak volumes for the success of Labour strategy. It's entirely likely that every other strategy would also have got us here, but it's hardly something to trumpet as a triumph.

That we're dependent on Boris Johnson having common sense in order to avoid a hard Brexit is, frankly, fucking terrifying.

[Snake Plissken]

That we're dependent on the whims of Boris Johnson has absolutely nothing to do with Labour strategy and everything to do with the desire of the Tory Party to cling on to power. In any other time, this Government would have collapsed at several points during the last two years. When the Government was found in contempt of Parliament. When May suffered the third highest defeat in a century, following it up with another huge defeat and then trying for a third time. Windrush. Grenfell. Ministers lying to the House. Ministers resigned because they can't vote for a deal that they themselves negotiated. The last Prime Minister lied to the monarch and the next one is promising to do the same. They are in open warfare with the Speaker who, by the way, was on the right wing of the Party before getting the gig. They are saying that they will walk out of the job to get what they want.

Now, we have the sight of Tory politicians openly saying they will vote for a man that they do not trust in any professional or personal capacity in order to stay on the right hand side of the Commons.

I've said it before - June 2016 broke the politics in this country. All those unwritten conventions, customs and precedents which greased the wheels are now in the bin. We're in the same situation as the States, with a rogue Party taking every opportunity it can to take an axe to the accepted norms of democracy and law in order to stay in power.

But, you know, COOOORRRRRRBBBBBYYYNNNNN!

Edit: You know what else I forgot that the Tories have done. Restored the whip to two of their MPs who were facing sexual misconduct allegations in order to win a vote. Broke pairing in a close vote. Forced a woman who had gone into labour (I think) to come to the House to vote. Given a knighthood in exchange for a vote. And, of course, voted to try and remove the current incumbent to be the Leader of the Party and then were happy to vote for them to be the leader of the country.

[Snake Plissken]

What options do you have in the second referendum? Genuine question.

Remain/revoke, obviously.

Against what?

Which of you want to put Theresa May's withdrawal agreement on the ballot paper, and which ones of you want to put no deal? Because one is ridiculous and the other one is criminally irresponsible

Well, we could always ask the Peoples Vote. They've had three years to think about it and campaign for it and... I'm sorry. Can't keep a straight face.

The saviours of Brexit, the Lib Dems, say that No Deal should be on the paper. That party really need Vince Cable to just fuck right off.

[Lang Spoon]

No deal isn't going to happen, because there isn't the will in Parliament, and short of having no further votes, or proroguing (both of which Bercow has stated he will not allow to happen).

then parliament will either have to revoke or accept the agreed WA. Or no deal happens by default.

[George C.]

The saviours of Brexit, the Lib Dems, say that No Deal should be on the paper. That party really need Vince Cable to just fuck right off.

He's retired as leader, hence the current leadership contest, apparently.

[David Agnew]

I have to say that I see this as ridiculously optimistic.

We are in a situation where we are dependent on Boris Johnson. And, specifically, on what Boris Johnson decides are in his personal best interests. We are depending on him having the common sense to see that the public in a general election would freak out if he let the time run out on Article 50 in October.

That we're dependent on the whims of Boris Johnson doesn't speak volumes for the success of Labour strategy. It's entirely likely that every other strategy would also have got us here, but it's hardly something to trumpet as a triumph.

That we're dependent on Boris Johnson having common sense in order to avoid a hard Brexit is, frankly, fucking terrifying.

Bercow has stated he will not allow the next PM to prorogue Parliament, or allow October 31st to pass without a vote. These are actual powers he has.

The Tories currently have a majority of four, including the DUP. That deal expires this month, and the DUP have said they are against no deal (because no deal means a hard border, and not even the DUP want to be the NI party responsible for breaking the Good Friday agreement). There’s a by election in a Con-LD marginal, and Dominic Grieve has said he’d vote no confidence in the government to block no deal.

The new Tory leader has to win a parliamentary vote in order to form a government. Just because Johnson will almost certainly become Tory leader, doesn’t mean he will become PM, and no deal cannot happen by default. It must be voted for, and there aren’t the votes.

This isnt optimism. This is the state of play.

[David Agnew]

then parliament will either have to revoke or accept the agreed WA. Or no deal happens by default.

.

[Moonlight Shadow]

Bercow has stated he will not allow the next PM to prorogue Parliament, or allow October 31st to pass without a vote. These are actual powers he has.

The Tories currently have a majority of four, including the DUP. That deal expires this month, and the DUP have said they are against no deal (because no deal means a hard border, and not even the DUP want to be the NI party responsible for breaking the Good Friday agreement). There’s a by election in a Con-LD marginal, and Dominic Grieve has said he’d vote no confidence in the government to block no deal.

The new Tory leader has to win a parliamentary vote in order to form a government. Just because Johnson will almost certainly become Tory leader, doesn’t mean he will become PM, and no deal cannot happen by default. It must be voted for, and there aren’t the votes.

This isnt optimism. This is the state of play.

What could be construed from your post David is that Johnson is essentially saying whatever he thinks will ensure his nomination in the full kowledge he will be prevented to implement any of his Brexit "vision" by both Westminster and Brussels which in his mind will be all the excuse he needs to justify the UK not leaving on the 31st of October. "Traitors and foreigners are preventing me to deliver Brexit" he will say...

[Snake Plissken]

One slight correction - No Deal happens by default on October 31, whether Parliament wants to or not. A further extension is in the gift of the EU27. Parliament can make the next Prime Minister ask, but it can't make the EU accept. A request for an extension is something that they probably wouldn't turn down but after two years of fucking them about and then electing a man who has gloried in antagonising them for 20 years I wouldn't put my house on it.

[NHH]

Under the appalling British constitution, Parliament can't actually stop No-Deal even if it voted for it, because the only way that happens is if a UK PM as the representative of the UK Executive either revokes A50 or asks for a deadline. Regardless of whether the EU agrees, Parliament can't force a PM to do these things as it can advise a Government to act, or prevent a course of action being following, but can't compel an executive; if Parliament wants something to happen, and the government is adamant that it shouldn't, then Parliament can't go over the head of the government, but instead must sack the government and replace it with one that is aligned with its view. Under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, that process takes a fair few weeks, and so it will all come down to a frenetic week of politicking before the Party Conferences start.

[Satchmo Distel]

The only way to stop No Deal is a successful Vote of No Confidence leading to an election. I'm not sure what the timeline for that process would be but I think it's inevitable because Johnson would be crucified if he just presented a dolled up version of May's deal for another vote so he'd rather just ignore whatever votes the Commons passes.

[David Agnew]

What could be construed from your post David is that Johnson is essentially saying whatever he thinks will ensure his nomination in the full kowledge he will be prevented to implement any of his Brexit "vision" by both Westminster and Brussels which in his mind will be all the excuse he needs to justify the UK not leaving on the 31st of October. "Traitors and foreigners are preventing me to deliver Brexit" he will say...

Quite possibly. He might even think he’s vain enough to convince the Brexiters that revoking is the right thing to do.

Personallty, I hope Labour come fill out for revoke before Parliament returns from recess. (You’ve had three years, there’s no plan, and you’re running down the clock to no deal, and the EU have said they will no longer renegotiate). Ian Lavery (one of the last opponents on the front bench) seemed to suggest that with his deleted tweet whinge last week.

[San Bernardhinault]

If it's true that Labour's considered position of having no policy at all on Brexit has prevented the Tories from unifying against Labour and thus allowing them to stew in their own divisions - and that this is not just some post-facto justification for triangulating bollocks - then surely it's essential that they remain policy free until after October 31st. If this is genuinely brilliant politicking, then creating something for the Tories to oppose at the key moment would ruin all the hard work.

[Satchmo Distel]

Johnson can deliver No Deal unless he loses a Vote of No Confidence, or seems about to do so, and I think he would go for an election at that point rather than revoke.

I don't think Labour would revoke without a referendum first with revoke as a ballot option. It's also unclear how enthusiastically Corbyn would campaign for revoke in a referendum, even if it's his official policy.

[Diable Rouge]

While the Tories discuss hypothetical global deals, the EU completes the Mercosur FTA.

[George C.]

Bercow has stated he will not allow the next PM to prorogue Parliament, or allow October 31st to pass without a vote. These are actual powers he has.

The Tories currently have a majority of four, including the DUP. That deal expires this month, and the DUP have said they are against no deal (because no deal means a hard border, and not even the DUP want to be the NI party responsible for breaking the Good Friday agreement). There’s a by election in a Con-LD marginal, and Dominic Grieve has said he’d vote no confidence in the government to block no deal.

The new Tory leader has to win a parliamentary vote in order to form a government. Just because Johnson will almost certainly become Tory leader, doesn’t mean he will become PM, and no deal cannot happen by default. It must be voted for, and there aren’t the votes.

This isnt optimism. This is the state of play.

Without wishing to be too contrary, according to the political pundits, they reckon 12-15 Tories would vote against a NDB, BUT up to 25 Labour MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-48694223) would vote for Brexit.

Unsure of the exact maths but seems like enough to carry this madness forward.

Needless to say If they end up facilitating Brexit, I hope all those 25 MPs lose their seats.
At the very least.

[David Agnew]

If it's true that Labour's considered position of having no policy at all on Brexit has prevented the Tories from unifying against Labour and thus allowing them to stew in their own divisions - and that this is not just some post-facto justification for triangulating bollocks - then surely it's essential that they remain policy free until after October 31st. If this is genuinely brilliant politicking, then creating something for the Tories to oppose at the key moment would ruin all the hard work.

Labour have had a policy on Brexit since early 2017. It's changed once, last year at Conference.

Had Labour come out for a people's vote when Amber Rudd's brother wanted them to, then you'd have loved Labour's public stance while the ERG panicked and voted for May's deal, and spent every waking moment after we left the EU on March 29th trying to renege on the withdrawal agreement.

[David Agnew]

Johnson can deliver No Deal unless he loses a Vote of No Confidence, or seems about to do so, and I think he would go for an election at that point rather than revoke.

I don't think Labour would revoke without a referendum first with revoke as a ballot option. It's also unclear how enthusiastically Corbyn would campaign for revoke in a referendum, even if it's his official policy.

Well he did more campaigning for remain than any other Labour MP, but the media were too focused on the civil war in the Tory party to feature anyone else. Even he was featured, they tried to ignore him. A friend was invited to a remain rally he did for NHS workers, and she thought it was brilliant (and politically, she's the sharpest tack I know, and can see bullshit a mile off). Loads of press there. When she got home, she switched on the BBC, which featured the rally on the news, but didn't show anything Corbyn said, but did have a three minute interview with Frank Field saying why Labour voters should vote Leave.

But then Corbyn gets criticised for giving the EU 7.5/10 and because that the EU needs to be better on social cohesion, human rights, worker rights and take a more humanitarian approach to victims of war within Europe - by the very people now saying we should remain and reform.

[ale]

I know this is going to sound compltely naive. But why is a vote made in 2016 now set in stone & binding in 2019? Elections for government are held in similar time spans. Nobody who voted for a tory government in 2015 ever imagined they would not be given an opportunity ever again to change their mind. Turns out it only took unto 2017 for plenty to do so.

[Nefertiti2]

I know this is going to sound compltely naive. But why is a vote made in 2016 now set in stone & binding in 2019? Elections for government are held in similar time spans. Nobody who voted for a tory government in 2015 ever imagined they would not be given an opportunity ever again to change their mind. Turns out it only took unto 2017 for plenty to do so.

because otherwise the far right coup which has been launched on the basis of the 52-48 split and the refusal to accept its consequences crumbles into dusts

[David Agnew]

I know this is going to sound compltely naive. But why is a vote made in 2016 now set in stone & binding in 2019? Elections for government are held in similar time spans. Nobody who voted for a tory government in 2015 ever imagined they would not be given an opportunity ever again to change their mind. Turns out it only took unto 2017 for plenty to do so.

Because the Tory party has spent over a generation having a civil war over Europe. Not enacting the referendum could kill the Tory party off, once and for all. And if that happens lots of Tories are at risk of losing their seats, and as far as Tories concerned, it's self before party, party before country every time.

And that's before you look at the disaster capitalists like Rees-Mogg, who have invested in the Euro and made millions off it, with the potential of making a second profit, if they have to revoke Article 50.

[David Agnew]

Still wondering what options other than remain/revoke are, on a second referendum, by the way. No one seems keen to put an answer forward.

[Nefertiti2]

the original option was single market and customs union.

the ERG, the media and the FBPE scuppered that, though,

[Eggchaser]

Gauke dodges the Leave. EU infiltrators after their not at all No Deal motivated vote of no confidence in him fails.

[sw2borshch]

Moved on a bit now, but I have a Quorn gammon roast in the freezer, Heron have them quite cheap sometimes.