Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

Status
Not open for further replies.
SezMe said:
Indeed. The Brexiteers surely know this so won't they act to prevent such a long extension? Do they have sufficient power to do so?

(Pardon a Yank's ignorance of British politics.)
Click to expand...

Brexiteers are a colorful, disunited bunch. You have some in the ERG, who think no deal Brexit is all rainbows and unicorns (or at least claim that), you have some in Labour who think (or equivalent) Corbyn's idea of a Norway-style Brexit will tear the UK off the EU lobbyists while allowing a development of social Britain along the lines of the Netherlands or Denmark. Then you have those who aren't Brexiteers at all but represent constituencies that voted for Brexit so they feel they must ensure a Brexit to represent their voters.

A no-deal Brexit is favored by the ERG only, the others prefer a different Brexit and they can't agree on which. A hodgepodge mess all around.

Anyway, to answer the question: the long extension throws a spanner in the workings of the ERG vermin, but offers the others an option that is more to their liking. A different Brexit deal, along the lines of what Corbyn suggested (save for the main upsides he promised) is entirely possible, a long extension favors those. It would also be acceptable to those Brexiteers who just support Brexit for the sake of their idiotic constituencies, since another referendum may well change their minds. I see this as a non-zero possibilitiy of happening.

How large is another question altogether. The delay would likely split the Tories asounder. Decent people don't care about that, but Theresa May does and she's in charge.

The odds are "nonzero", that's as far as I'm willing to say right now.

McHrozni
 
I see Theresa May's response to the decision that a third vote cannot be held on her deal is to try to go ahead with a third vote on her deal anyway. If nothing else, she's consistent.

Dave
 
Nessie said:
Rees-Mogg has tweeted he thinks leaving on the 29th with no deal is the best option.

With Mays deal off the table the choice is now no deal or ask for a long extension.
Click to expand...

He might well think that but Parliament rejected that option. And TM really should be doing something about that decision rather than pretending it didn't happen.
 
Darat said:
Such a vote does not overturn legislation. Until the law is changed by parliament we leave on the 29th.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which is why I say TM should be doing something about that rather than putting her fingers in her ears and shouting la la la
 
You have to remember that May was 100% successful in getting the only vote from MPs that she has ever has been concerned about. Which was the leadership vote.

Thanks to the likes of Rees Mogg she doesn't have to really worry about the consequences of anything for the next few months.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Apparently there is a precedent in Erskine May from 1604 "The Same Question Or Bill May Not be Twice Offered in One Session"

(Erskine May is the 'rule book' for Parliament)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erskine_May:_Parliamentary_Practice
Click to expand...

I wonder who on the Speaker's staff managed to dig that one up?
To go back to the first year of the reign of James the First for a precedent is fascinating, from a pure historian's point of view.
I got a feeling that normally it would be considered sort of a "Dead Letter Rule".
 
dudalb said:
I wonder who on the Speaker's staff managed to dig that one up?
To go back to the first year of the reign of James the First for a precedent is fascinating, from a pure historian's point of view.
I got a feeling that normally it would be considered sort of a "Dead Letter Rule".
Click to expand...

Bercow did list several times when the rule had been invoked. iirc there were a few as recently as the 1920's, but I was laughing pretty hard at the time :)


I only smirked because it was ******* hilarious, says Bercow
 
dudalb said:
I wonder who on the Speaker's staff managed to dig that one up?
To go back to the first year of the reign of James the First for a precedent is fascinating, from a pure historian's point of view.
I got a feeling that normally it would be considered sort of a "Dead Letter Rule".
Click to expand...


They didn’t have to go back to the first year of the reign of James I for it, it’s in the current edition of Erskine May, on page 397.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It's kind of complicated, Farage is definitely rich and establishment, he went to a Eaton College school but the classic English twit is more obviously upper class (think Rees-Mogg) and we generally consider our twits to be oblivious but generally good natured (don't think Rees-Mogg). Farage is more of a spiv, in the ration book days that Brexiteers think so kindly of he'd have been trading on the Black Market.
Click to expand...

How does that saying go, "The English and Americans are a common people separated only by a different language"

Anyway, can you explain those terms?
 
SezMe said:
How does that saying go, "The English and Americans are a common people separated only by a different language"

Anyway, can you explain those terms?
Click to expand...

"Spiv: a man, typically a flashy dresser, who makes a living by disreputable dealings." During WWII rationing spivs were black marketeers who, for a price, could get you that bottle of scotch or whatever.

Rationing in the United Kingdom
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Bercow did list several times when the rule had been invoked. iirc there were a few as recently as the 1920's, but I was laughing pretty hard at the time :)


I only smirked because it was ******* hilarious, says Bercow
Click to expand...

And, of course, one of the reasons it hasn't been invoked more often is that, pre:FTPA, the government would have been pretty much dumped with a defeat of the magnitude May suffered in the first Meaningless Vote.

In order to show that this is pulling a rule out of his arse they'd have to show recent examples of represented votes where the details hadn't changed.

I don't expect any of them to do that, though...
 
A trillion pounds is leaving the UK for Europe.

At 350 million pounds per week, UK is set to break even around 2027, assuming no other bills pile up and not including compound interest or other factors.

https://www.ft.com/content/016171be-4a74-11e9-8b7f-d49067e0f50d

At the more realistic 100 million pounds per week that comes out into mid-2040s, not including other Brexit related expenses.

I have a feeling the "50 years to first benefits" was wildly optimistic.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
A trillion pounds is leaving the UK for Europe.



At 350 million pounds per week, UK is set to break even around 2027, assuming no other bills pile up and not including compound interest or other factors.



https://www.ft.com/content/016171be-4a74-11e9-8b7f-d49067e0f50d



At the more realistic 100 million pounds per week that comes out into mid-2040s, not including other Brexit related expenses.



I have a feeling the "50 years to first benefits" was wildly optimistic.



McHrozni
Click to expand...
A trillion has already left, is this an additional trillion?
 
Darat said:
A trillion has already left, is this an additional trillion?
Click to expand...

... I have no idea.

Total financial assets of London City in 2016 were estimated at just over 5 trillion pounds, so maybe?

The estimate by EY — which mainly covers client assets and cash moved out of the UK by banks and fund managers as well as the transfer of balance sheets as operations are relocated — has increased by £200bn since the last survey in January. -- the quoted article

200 billion pounds left in the last two months alone, according to the conservative estimate. It could indeed be London will lose out up to 40% of total financial assets. But a few words are adequate: "calamity", "cataclysm", "debacle", etc.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom