Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Andy_Ross]

When you don't get along with the British Prime Minister, the British Ambassador in Washington and the Mayor of London the chance is that it might not be them that is the problem?

 

[Vixen]

When you don't get along with the British Prime Minister, the British Ambassador in Washington and the Mayor of London the chance is that it might not be them that is the problem?

He likes some Brits:

• Nigel Farage
• The English Defence League (retweeted them)
• Katie Hopkins (ditto)
• Boris Johnson

 

[Andy_Ross]

When you don't get along with the British Prime Minister, the British Ambassador in Washington and the Mayor of London the chance is that it might not be them that is the problem?

 

[Garrison]

The Labour affiliated trade unions have moved towards a far more pro-remain position that could have major consequences for Labour policy on Brexit:

Labour affiliated unions agree Brexit vote stance

This a big boost for those campaigning for the party to openly embrace Remain since the position of the unions had been one of the reasons Corbyn has been so recalcitrant.

 

[ceptimus]

If Labour pivot to Remain, but the Tories manage to deliver Brexit, what will Labour do then? It seems a risky move to make - especially as there are already plenty of Remain-supporting parties to vote for.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If Labour pivot to Remain, but the Tories manage to deliver Brexit, what will Labour do then?

Well, Corbyn will let the Tories take all the blame for Brexit chaos and make vague allusions to being sad about some aspect of our having left the EU without getting pinned down or admitting it's what he actually wanted and ask if can he be prime minster now, please.

 

[Pixel42]

If Labour pivot to Remain, but the Tories manage to deliver Brexit, what will Labour do then?

Watch Project Fear become Project We Told You So for a while, then get elected on a promise to hold another referendum and campaign to rejoin, I imagine.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is because this deal is just a step toward new normalized relations and so it does not have all the details of how trade will work, the backstop is such that if negotiations break down and can not be agreed that NI remains within the EU customs union and there is then a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK. If they could negotiate a final deal before this break down it would never come into effect, but it is to make sure there is not a hard irish border as a possibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/what-is-the-brexit-backstop

Of course it seems unlikely that realistic agreements could be made by anyone from the UK at this time to prevent the backstop going into effect but for all everyone agrees they don't want a hard irish border, retaking control of the UK borders was exactly what so many people say the vote was about.

If Boris does nothing a no-deal goes through, which it likely will since he is a do nothing kind of guy. There can be no back stop since there is no deal. Ireland will have to put up a hard border. A backstop requires some kind of deal and Boris has already put the backstop in the too hard basket.

 

[Norman Alexander]

If Boris does nothing a no-deal goes through, which it likely will since he is a do nothing kind of guy. There can be no back stop since there is no deal. Ireland will have to put up a hard border. A backstop requires some kind of deal and Boris has already put the backstop in the too hard basket.

You get the strong impression he hasn't been paying attention too hard the last few months, and isn't really quite sure what an "Irish backstop" really is...something footballish?

 

[IanS]

As has now been pointed out many times, MPs can pass bills saying that a no-deal Brexit is unacceptable until they're blue in the face but unless they can also pass legislation saying what they want instead (be that no-Brexit, a second referendum or even a General Election) then we'll end up with no deal once the EU finally says no to an extension.

At the moment, Boris (or Jeremy) has nothing to fear from a successful "no no-deal" vote because Parliament seems unable to pass anything that will amount to an alternative to no-deal.

OK, well you make that point again. And I've responded to that many times now. So we disagree on part of that.

But in a few weeks time we will have a new PM in place, and we can see what he actually does.

We will see whether he can stop all opposition votes in the HoC, and whether he can simply run down the clock and declare a No Deal exit. Unless MPs allow him to do that by not bothering to vote against a No Deal exit, then as I have explained many times, I think the PM will find he is effectively forced to return to the EU asking for an extension to A50 (that's assuming there is no vote to accept any particular exit plan, or indeed a vote to accept a No Deal exit). So lets just see.

Whatever any of us think or predict, we are about to see what will happen. So lets just wait and see.

 

[The Don]

OK, well you make that point again. And I've responded to that many times now. So we disagree on part of that.

But in a few weeks time we will have a new PM in place, and we can see what he actually does.

We will see whether he can stop all opposition votes in the HoC, and whether he can simply run down the clock and declare a No Deal exit. Unless MPs allow him to do that by not bothering to vote against a No Deal exit, then as I have explained many times, I think the PM will find he is effectively forced to return to the EU asking for an extension to A50 (that's assuming there is no vote to accept any particular exit plan, or indeed a vote to accept a No Deal exit). So lets just see.

Whatever any of us think or predict, we are about to see what will happen. So lets just wait and see.

Why do you keep obsessing about the highlighted bit ?

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has suggested that a new PM would even attempt to prevent the opposition.

To repeat for the umpteenth time, a vote which says no to a no-deal Brexit simply isn't enough - to actually be effective in preventing a no-deal Brexit it has to, or has to be successfully followed up by a bill to do something else instead and that's where the problem seems to lie - Parliament is happy to say no to a no-deal but cannot decide what to do instead.

A stand alone "no no-deal" bill sails through but has no real power because it still leaves no-deal as a default.

A "no no-deal" + "force the new PM to ask for an extension" bill may pass (though I think it unlikely) but doesn't solve the problem because no-deal is still the default if the EU refuses and extension or nothing changes during the extension period.

The other three options,

• No no deal + force a second referendum
• No no deal + change the default to no Brexit
• No no deal + General Election

All likely don't pass and 2 of the 3 would also require the EU to grant an extension to let them happen - though I could see that the EU would be prepared to let that happen.

In order to secure a no-deal Brexit, all the new Conservative Prime Minister has to to is to stick to his guns and allow Parliament to fail to come to agreement about an alternative course of action.

 

[McHrozni]

Actually I don't think the Leave voters did vote for any of that (highlight) as their main objective. The main reason why the majority of Brexit voters voted as they did, was to stop or reduce immigration.

With a vcitory margin of under 52-48 it doesn't matter what "the majority of Brexit voters" voted for. It is questionable if their side would have won if it wasn't for the blatant lies a portion of the electorate still believes in. Therefore democratic legitemacy of the referendum is gone with the wind.

Some Brexit voters may have other reasons as their main concern. But if you listen to virtually every BBC radio phone-in and every interview with Brexit voters in the UK over the last 3 years, it's obvious that immigration was the main issue.

Immigration is currently the main issue of people who call BBC stations and still support Brexit. It doesn't mean it was the main issue when they cast their votes. Doubly so because immigration is the one thing Brexit actually can address, unlike the ailing NHS.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

More likely, Parliament votes to have BJ “negotiate a better deal” even though from the EU perspective the negotiating is over. This would likely appease any MP’s opposed to a no-deal Brexit even though the inevitable result is still a no deal Brexit on Oct 31.

They can send BJ to Brussels to "negotiate for more time to negotiate for a better deal". Just as long as they send him there, cap in hand, to ask for more time. Then EU can make a response that has the chance of resolving the issue.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

But can they force [BJ] to [Go to Brussels and beg for more time]?

Unless he wants to be the second PM ever to be held in contempt of Parliament, yes, I'm pretty sure they can. The results could be a tad more severe than for Theresa May, if the result is a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of Parliament.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

If Labour pivot to Remain, but the Tories manage to deliver Brexit, what will Labour do then? It seems a risky move to make - especially as there are already plenty of Remain-supporting parties to vote for.

I don't think it's a particularly risky move. You say that there are plenty of remain supporting parties but the SNP and Plaid are restricted to Scotland and Wales, the Greens may be able to get a couple of seats (and split the Remain vote in many others) but only the LidDems can feasibly win seats at a national level and even then we're maybe talking about tens. A remain supporting Labour Party is the only remain party IMO which could win seats across the the country and form a government, either because it has a majority or because it's the largest party in a pro-remain coalition.

It also makes sense from a party perspective. Depending on the polls, 65% to 75% or Labour members and supporters are pro-remain, and 80%+ are pro second referendum. Remaining pro-Brexit risks losing a significant proportion of those voters without attracting support from the Conservatives or Brexit Party. Even as a Labour MP in a Brexit-leaning constituency, supporting remain, or a second referendum will still deliver the seat because you'll likely keep the vast majority of your existing support (including some who are pro-Brexit but would vote Labour anyway).

IMO the bigger risk to Labour would be to remain a Brexit supporting party. There are already two emphatically and unambiguously pro-Brexit parties out there. Why would a Brexit supporter consider the Labour Party's weak tea version of Brexit superior to that of parties who are wholeheartedly behind it ?


edited to add.....

In any case, the latest Labour Party position is that they are still a pro-Brexit party. If they become the party of government before Brexit is enacted then they will attempt to negotiate a Brexit deal and then offer a referendum where the options are no-Brexit or the Labour deal. They will campaign in favour of the Labour deal.

 

[McHrozni]

In any case, the latest Labour Party position is that they are still a pro-Brexit party. If they become the party of government before Brexit is enacted then they will attempt to negotiate a Brexit deal and then offer a referendum where the options are no-Brexit or the Labour deal. They will campaign in favour of the Labour deal.

Yay! A rational plan for a Brexit policy!

And just three years too late! At this rate Corbyn will be competent enough to serve as an MP by 2036.

McHrozni

 

[Nessie]

When you don't get along with the British Prime Minister, the British Ambassador in Washington and the Mayor of London the chance is that it might not be them that is the problem?

Trump's behaviour is school kid playground bullying, by the kid who wants to dominate and manipulate. He wants to isolate the other kid who has a go at him.

I think the timing of the leak is Brexit related. As it looks like we are leaving with no deal and will be more dependent on the USA, ruin relations with the USA by pissing off the big kid who likes a trade war.

 

[Lothian]

Trump's behaviour is school kid playground bullying, by the kid who wants to dominate and manipulate. He wants to isolate the other kid who has a go at him.

I think the timing of the leak is Brexit related. As it looks like we are leaving with no deal and will be more dependent on the USA, ruin relations with the USA by pissing off the big kid who likes a trade war.

It doesn't matter. The leaked documents repeat what Trump says publicly. America First. Any deal we get with the US must be on America's terms. We will get no favours.

 

[KDLarsen]

Someone is now trying to spoil relations between the UK and USA by leaking correspondence by the UK Ambassador to the US, which included comments such as;

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-darroch-is-reported-to-have-said-about-trump

"As seen from here, we really don’t believe that this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional, less unpredictable, less faction-riven, less diplomatically clumsy and inept”

"For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a rollercoaster; something could emerge that leads to disgrace and downfall"

I disagree with the notion that it's intended to damage relations between the UK and US.

The reporter who published the leaks is heavily involved with the pro-Brexit crowd (iirc she co-/ghostwrote the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' book with Arron Banks). It's far more likely it's someone who wants to get rid of a troublesome ambassador to the US, potentially allowing Boris Johnson to appoint someone who is far more likely to be in the good graces of trump.

Say, Nigel Farrage, perhaps? After all, he'll be out of a job in 3-and-a-bit months time...

 

[The Don]

I disagree with the notion that it's intended to damage relations between the UK and US.

The reporter who published the leaks is heavily involved with the pro-Brexit crowd (iirc she co-/ghostwrote the 'Bad Boys of Brexit' book with Arron Banks). It's far more likely it's someone who wants to get rid of a troublesome ambassador to the US, potentially allowing Boris Johnson to appoint someone who is far more likely to be in the good graces of trump.

Say, Nigel Farrage, perhaps? After all, he'll be out of a job in 3-and-a-bit months time...

Quite possibly, he has all the necessary qualifications from Boris' perspective (ardent Brexiteer) and from President Trump's perspective (overt love for the President). IMO it would signal a new recent low for the UK but I'm used to that at the moment