UK General Election

[Craig B]

Le Pen has no influence whatsoever regarding Brexit. I have no idea why you've ignored the topic in favour of talking about her.

You are now being dishonest. You asked what she had to do with it. I answered. So you changed the question to what "influence" she had. Naughty, and pointless.

My topic was the validity of expressing opinions in the matter. If you have opinions, feel free to express them, and give other people the right to do the same.

 

[3point14]

Sorry, but if someone deliberately sets fire to the room both of us are locked into I am never going to stop complaining about it, no matter how often they tell me to shut up and help feed the fire.

Very well put. I'm stealing that one, I'm afraid.

 

[baron]

You are now being dishonest. You asked what she had to do with it. I answered. So you changed the question to what "influence" she had. Naughty, and pointless.

So what does she have to do with it? Does everyone who commented on Brexit now have something to do with Brexit? Shall we discuss Trump, Putin, Erdogan and the Pope too?

My topic was the validity of expressing opinions in the matter. If you have opinions, feel free to express them, and give other people the right to do the same.

If you wanted to change topics then you shouldn't have quoted my post, because when you do that it's expected that the response will have some connection with the quoted text.

 

[baron]

Very well put. I'm stealing that one, I'm afraid.

No need to steal someone else's hysterical hyperbole when you could make up one of your own. For example:

"Ahem! (here you imagine me stepping onto a wooden box, splaying one hand on my chest and adopting the pained, earnest expression of a third-rate orator)

If the country is being invaded by Nazis who are murdering millions of innocent women and children, don't expect me to stay silent no matter how often I'm told to don a pair of jackboots and get shooting!"

 

[MikeG]

Let's look at the Conservative Party manifesto 2015. Their EU stance starts on page 72 (74th page in the PDF). The headline is "Real change in our relationship with the European Union". Then the first bullet point is

and then the first paragraph:

and the last paragraph on that first page ends with:

Furthermore, there's a splash on that page that reads:

On the next page it reads, as first point of their plan of action:

And whatever you think of that, that's exactly what David Cameron has done. It's all spelled out in detail in the 2015 manifesto.

So, no, a new 2017 manifesto will not give May extra protection from opposition from the Lords under the Salisbury Convention. And I can only repeat again: it's still only a convention, they may ignore it.

I'm sorry, but you have wasted your time. That manifesto says nothing about how Brexit will be dealt with, about access to the single market, about EU immigration, about UK post-Brexit fisheries and agriculture policy, and so on. There is absolutely nothing whatever in that list you have made which will be in the "exiting the EU" bill, and so your point, whatever it was, is spurious, and your final paragraph just plain flat-out wrong. Elsewhere in the manifesto, Cameron made it clear that he would be campaigning to remain.

I don't know where you live, ddt, but you may not understand this: longstanding conventions aren't ignored here. The Lords will work to this convention, whatever you want to happen.

 

[MikeG]

And how is that going to help?

"Dear Lords, we promised in our manifesto a free pony for every Brit and here's the lump of coal that Santa gave us. Please sign off".

The government's expectations of Brexit are wildly unrealistic. Concretely, they want continuance of the Common Market but a stop to free EU immigration. That is not going to happen.

You demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you are doing it in the wrong thread. How about talking about the UK election in the UK election thread? If you don't know the importance of government policy being in its manifesto, in terms of getting its business through the Lords, then you don't know anything at all.

It's been a whole page since you equated May with Erdogan. Don't you think we're due a reprise of that?

 

[Craig B]

So what does she have to do with it? Does everyone who commented on Brexit now have something to do with Brexit? Shall we discuss Trump, Putin, Erdogan and the Pope too?

Read my link. The answers are in the linked article.

If you wanted to change topics then you shouldn't have quoted my post, because when you do that it's expected that the response will have some connection with the quoted text.

That is mere gibberish.

 

[Garrison]

Upon seeing the cover of the Daily express cover my first thought was, 'far too late'

 

[baron]

Read my link. The answers are in the linked article.

I don't think I'll bother.

 

[MCel58]

Yes.

I think Mike G has got this exactly right plus it will basically stop any further Supreme Court actions as the key points of manifesto will be turned into the Queens speech.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm sorry, but you have wasted your time. That manifesto says nothing about how Brexit will be dealt with, about access to the single market, about EU immigration, about UK post-Brexit fisheries and agriculture policy, and so on. There is absolutely nothing whatever in that list you have made which will be in the "exiting the EU" bill, and so your point, whatever it was, is spurious, and your final paragraph just plain flat-out wrong. Elsewhere in the manifesto, Cameron made it clear that he would be campaigning to remain.

I don't know where you live, ddt, but you may not understand this: longstanding conventions aren't ignored here. The Lords will work to this convention, whatever you want to happen.

Longstanding conventions aren't ignored here...Unless it suits the Tories.

 

[ddt]

You demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about, but you are doing it in the wrong thread. How about talking about the UK election in the UK election thread? If you don't know the importance of government policy being in its manifesto, in terms of getting its business through the Lords, then you don't know anything at all.

I'm at a loss why you think I'm arguing this in the wrong thread. It is germane to this thread, and it was you who raised the topic here in this thread.

And you evaded the question that I raised, so I'll try again.

The Salisbury Convention says the Lord cannot vote down a bill that was announced in the election manifesto. But the manifesto has to be specific on what the bill will entail. The Tories can't just write into the manifesto, in Trumpian fashion "we'll negotiate the bestest Brexit deal"; they'll have to say what that deal will contain.

So, let's look what the May government just two months ago announced as their intentions in the White Paper. I pick out just two points:
1) wide-ranging free trade with the EU
2) the UK has full control over immigration from the EU.
So, those points will also be in the Tory manifesto.

Fast forward to March 2019. After tough negotiations, May presents a Brexit bill that has
1) passporting for financial services, but no free trade for other services, nor for industrial or agricultural/fisheries goods
2) the UK must allow immigration of at least <insert 75% of current level> from the EU countries.
3) and the UK must pay the EU GBP 200mn/week for the privilege.

Obviously, this Brexit deal does not conform to the election promises in the manifesto, so it's also not subject to the Salisbury Convention.

I just made up those hypothetical negotiation outcomes; but the White Paper is totally unrealistic in its aims. It reads like a letter to Santa. No way that the UK government will achieve the goals outlined therein. So no matter how the negotiations exactly turn out, it will not look like what is in their manifesto, not even close, and thus the Brexit bill will not be subject to the Salisbury Convention.

Or, alternatively, the Tories would have to greatly turn down their expectations and write much, much more sober aims in their manifesto.

 

[ddt]

Longstanding conventions aren't ignored here...Unless it suits the Tories.

Or the LibDems:

Mr Farron was defending his decision to use the Liberal Democrats' 101 peers in the House of Lords to try to block the Conservative manifesto commitment to extend 'Right to Buy' to Housing Association tenants.
[...]
When challenged on whether he would respect the Salisbury Convention that means the House of Lords will not oppose the second or third reading of a manifesto commitment of a party with a Commons majority, Mr Farron said it was a "political stitch-up" and he would not abide by a "gentleman's pact between the old establishment parties".
[...]
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem Chief Whip in the House of Lords, said at the conference that the party can defeat the Government at will and will "misbehave" in Lords votes.

 

[Darat]

Are you arguing that she wants to explicitly put the government's policy on Brexit in the manifesto in order to prevent the Lords from delaying the passage of the Brexit bill?

According to what she has said recently she couldn't do that because it would be bad for our negotiating positions... mind you that was a couple of weeks ago so her position is likely to be 180 degrees different now..

 

[Darat]

Yes.

Even though she has insisted she couldn't even tell parliament her Brexit negotiation plan?

 

[imodium]

Corbyn spends the morning explaining how much and just how money would be taken back from tax dodgers while pointing out there won't be a second referendum, brexit means brexit (lol).
Result is a +4 gain for the tories in the nightly polls.
Ye olde analogy of turkeys not voting for christmas is being rethunk.

 

[angrysoba]

According to what she has said recently she couldn't do that because it would be bad for our negotiating positions... mind you that was a couple of weeks ago so her position is likely to be 180 degrees different now..

A couple of weeks is a long, long time in politics.

 

[Belgian thought]

The Lib Dems, or Tim Farron at least, wants to stop Brexit, not temper it. All this talk of opposing hard Brexit only popped up yesterday, clearly in an effort to win people over for the election. Prior to that Farron was hell bent on stopping it altogether.

Is not "hard" or "soft" Brexit dependent on the reaction of the EU i.e. just a negotiating strategy and can never really be policy (for election) since one does not have the power to impose it unopposed since the oppose is the EU whose game plan is as yet, unknown.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes.

Well then I shall admit it is more reasonable than my initial response allowed.

 

[angrysoba]

Is not "hard" or "soft" Brexit dependent on the reaction of the EU i.e. just a negotiating strategy and can never really be policy (for election) since one does not have the power to impose it unopposed since the oppose is the EU whose game plan is as yet, unknown.

I would think a soft Brexit is more contingent on the good will of the EU than a hard one. It depends on what the U.K. wants the EU to keep doing (such as residency rights for British ex-pats in Europe including access to healthcare) and whether certain protectionist policies would keep out or increase costs on British goods etc...