Brexit

[pete]

Because the next election is not due until 2022 it requires a 2/3 rd majority in parliament and I don't think that will happen

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Yes it would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas for many MPs. They might like getting on their ideological soap boxes at every opportunity, but if the reality of an election means losing their lucrative jobs, then they’ll stick with the status quo.

[gregs24]

10 hours ago, Barrykearley said:

Irish border backstop - this is simply a perverse pressure point being applied by the EU.

please do remind me the border checks on the Swiss /EU boundaries.

Boris needs to be firm on the border - we won’t be putting any in place - the Eu will be the ones doing so if ever the border checks resume

Ehh ? Irish backstop arrangement is to ensure an open border which is a key demand for both the UK and the Irish and enshrined in the Good Friday agreement. If Boris can come up with an alternative arrangement that satisfies everybody then away we go - but it has to actually work not some nebulous enthusiastic ideas and he has about 4 weeks to come up with it! Remember that the 'deal' version of Brexit is simply a negotiating period for the trade agreement whilst maintaining tariff free trade. If that negotiation fails, then if the border is to remain open there has to be a backstop arrangement. Negotiating trade deals takes years and a hard Brexit leaves us out in the cold whilst trying to negotiate a trade deal. 

Switzerland has a trade agreement with the EU hence no border checks. No deal brexit means WTO rules, means border controls full stop. Doesn't matter what we do, the Irish will be mandated to apply checks as part of the EU unless the checks are done between Ireland and the rest of the EU which would be perverse as an EU member and very unlikely.

Too many people are uninformed and I'm afraid the current government are not helping that.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by gregs24

[gregs24]

9 hours ago, pete said:

Because the next election is not due until 2022 it requires a 2/3 rd majority in parliament and I don't think that will happen

That is not correct

That only applies under the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011. If there is a vote of no confidence in the government, then unless an alternative government or the original government can win a majority there will be an election. Boris now has no majority and it requires only a simple majority of 1 to form a government. This is why a coalition of all of the opposition parties is the most likely way forward as an interim government with a few rebel Tories joining in. This would also stop Boris proroguing parliament as he would no longer be PM.

This is a key factor over the next few days. Boris is likely to try and trigger an election if the act looks like getting through parliament to block a no deal. If he wins a 2/3 majority he calls the shots on the election date and crucially can change the date at a later date - in this case to post 31/10 forcing through a no deal Brexit before the election. Opposition parties are very unlikely to support this, so it is far more likely that it will be rejected and a vote of no confidence take place. This puts the power over choosing the date in the hands of the opposition and not Boris. Subtle but crucial differences that will be dressed up in political rhetoric over the next few days.

[pete]

Sorry but that was correct assuming Boris calls for an election. The second option of a vote of no confidence does take away that right however that means parliament temporary voting in Corbyn as prime minister , good luck with that.

[Barrykearley]

10 minutes ago, pete said:

 however that means parliament temporary voting in Corbyn as prime minister , good luck with that.

Never gonna happen - they all dislike him more than Boris. 

We need an election and need one now. These fools have had a long time to get us out of the EU and they simply aren’t delivering  

[Stubox]

6 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

Never gonna happen - they all dislike him more than Boris. 

We need an election and need one now. These fools have had a long time to get us out of the EU and they simply aren’t delivering  

Then with an election who takes you out of the Eu? 

 

[pete]

An election is no good for anyone,we will end up with a hung parliament and possibly months of squabbling amongst them all as they try to form a government. Don't see how MPs can vote out no deal when it is the default,only way will be to revoke article 50.

[Barrykearley]

Don’t think a hint Parliament will occur - let’s just look at the success of the brexit party in the euros.

 

many in the north will not vote Tory - but won’t vote remain labour - here comes a Tory / Brexit coalition

[pete]

Unless they agree which seats they are going to contest the Brexit party will split the conservative vote and neither will win if that happens

[Barrykearley]

Not so sure @pete - looks like Boris will deselect all remained Tory’s - so that’ll probably put that beyond doubt.

i don’t think anyone can doubt Boris’s brexit intentions 

[pete]

He probably will but they may then stand as an independent which will dilute the conservative vote even more

[oilmagnet477]

I don't doubt any of what Greg says as being correct in procedural terms but it doesn't get away from the fact that over the last 3 years a majority of elected MPs have acted un-democratically.

They are there to represent the will of the people. However you cut it, 52%, 17.something million and 60% of constituencies voted to LEAVE the EU. There was no question about leaving with a deal or without one. The fact is that MPs DO NOT WANT Brexit to happen. All Boris is doing is to try and deliver that. If he has made the wrong call and he loses a General Election on the back of it, IMO that is a massive failing of our Government. It should never have come to this and Boris shouldn't necessarily be seen as the whipping boy at this late hour.

If Gove hadn't murdered BoJo's chances of leadership 3 years ago, maybe, just maybe, the negotiations would have been less of a capitulation and more focussed on getting a deal that didn't just keep the EU happy. I have more Govt experience than maybe does me credit and we were NEVER going to walk out of the EU with a deal that suited both sides. We are now faced with leaving with no deal - I readily accept this is a bad outcome but to coin a phrase - 'no deal is better than a bad deal'

It seems Parliamentarians have all focused on keeping the pig trough full and thinking they can overturn the majority vote on the basis that 'no brexit is better than no deal'. In the short term, economically, that may well be correct but if we don't leave (under any terms) how will we ever know?

I voted to remain in 2016 and still believe that this was probably the correct vote for my kids. I do however now feel vehemently attached to leaving - democratically it is the only outcome I can respect.

Maybe a bit more collective 'respect' all around is what is needed.

If Corbyn ends up heading a Govt, coalition or otherwise, how many people will there be left in the UK to pay for all of his 'policies'. It is all well and good spending your entire political life fighting what you don't agree with but at some point, you have to get behind something that everyone else believes is right (as well as affordable and deliverable).

I have 'worked' since the age of 16 - he has never represented my views - how does that align the Labour Party with the 'working classes'? Maybe their ideas are as out of date as their terminology?

[gregs24]

3 hours ago, pete said:

Sorry but that was correct assuming Boris calls for an election. The second option of a vote of no confidence does take away that right however that means parliament temporary voting in Corbyn as prime minister , good luck with that.

That is what I meant - Your comment was correct, but I don't think that is how an election will be called hence why I don't think you are right that there will be no election. It doesn't have to be Corbyn as PM down that route either.

 

The only thing that is certain is that about half of the population will be unhappy whichever way things go !

[oilmagnet477]

If an MP defects, how come that doesn't immediately trigger a bi-election?

If my MP moved to another party, I wouldn't vote for them again............

[andydclements]

Same as if the party leader changes, or a party changes their policies, all that we technically vote for is a single person to be our representative. We then rely on that person to make good judgement decisions as to what the majority of the constituents would agree is appropriate (as if.....).

[Steve V8]

1 hour ago, oilmagnet477 said:

If an MP defects, how come that doesn't immediately trigger a bi-election?

Absolutely ridiculous, another example of an elected representative of the people misusing the powers entrusted to them by their electorate. 

I'm disgusted by the arrogance of these self important, self centered people, yes people is all they are, in many cases not very bright, I'll informed, and so far up their own asses that they forget those of us who put them where they are.

It's just laughable to hear these cretins speak of democracy whilst changing the rule book to undermine a democratic vote. DEMOCRACY IS DEAD

[martynw]

I try to apply a bit of logic to this, and have to say the 20 odd rebels probably didn't do this for their own interests. They've just ended their own careers/salaries etc.

I have no.interest in trying to persuade people to be pro or anti Brexit, seems.to me no one ever changes their mind. But I do like to give most people enough credit to accept they are doing what they think is best for people/the UK.

But this js a terribly unfashionable view, so you can all tell me to f*** off.

[scotty435]

1 hour ago, martynw said:

I try to apply a bit of logic to this, and have to say the 20 odd rebels probably didn't do this for their own interests. They've just ended their own careers/salaries etc.

I have no.interest in trying to persuade people to be pro or anti Brexit, seems.to me no one ever changes their mind. But I do like to give most people enough credit to accept they are doing what they think is best for people/the UK.

But this js a terribly unfashionable view, so you can all tell me to f*** off.

It’s not unfashionable at all, you have as much right to speak your mind on this forum as anyone else, the hard Brexiteers will definitely disagree and by the why I totally agree with you, a no deal is not what the country needs, so it’s simple MPs putting people’s livelihoods especially the younger generation before party politics in my opinion is noble, great to see bullying in any form is not the answer and as been put back where it belongs in the gutter.

[Steve V8]

I

20 minutes ago, martynw said:

But this js a terribly unfashionable view, so you can all tell me to f*** off.

Not at all Martin, I see you are from London, your view is probably hugely fashionable there, as it would be in Scotland. The problem seems to be most of our broadcasting associations and media are based in London, most of our MP's live part time work and socialise in London, but London does not share the opinion of the rest of the country, we the majority outside the M25 are sick to death of hearing the doom and gloom, Brexit car crash, off the cliff, do or die propaganda coming from within the capitol every day.

Please take a look at the voting map of the UK to see the huge proportion of the country that voted to leave, those MP's who represent that huge proportion should do so, and if they have lost their careers and salaries for refusing to uphold a referendum result, then that's the least they deserve.

Let me give you another example of how out of touch London is with the rest of the country... Anti semitism within the labour party, that was headline news for weeks, as if it were the end of the world. Being from outside London it means absolutely nothing, I don't think I've ever even seen a Jew let alone needed to hear about anti semitism every day.

[C8RKH]

4 hours ago, scotty435 said:

But I do like to give most people enough credit to accept they are doing what they think is best for people/the UK.

But that doesn't seem to include actually doing what the majority of people in the UK asked them to do! So I have to disagree with you and say that they are selfishly following their own agenda, not the direction from their own constituents. The best example of all re this being John Bercow the remain biased Speaker who has refused to take a neutral view and instead abused his position to undermine our very own PM and Government. Or have I missed the point?

[march]

So Philip Lee MP defects to SDP and votes against the government:

1. The country in an exercise of Direct Democracy decided they wanted to Leave.
2. He fought and won his seat on a commitment of leaving the EU.
3. His constituency (Bracknell) who voted him under Parliamentary Democracy reportedly voted to Leave  70% to 30%
4. He grandstands the situation by taking a seat during the PM's G7 speech for maximum embarrassment.

In what world can this man be seen to be enacting any form of democratic process and be following the wishes of the majority constituents. There are some seriously unhappy people in Bracknell today!

Would it not have been more honest to stand down stating he was no longer able to fulfil his commitments rather than betray his national electorate, his party and his local constituency.

[red vtec]

At least three of the rebels are not even standing next time. Bercow, is a disgrace, he is so clearly biased that he is not fit for his role. 

The lot of them are unfit to serve us, we deserve better. 

[SFO]

Bercow is a disgrace. He needs to be replaced ASAP. 

[march]

Starting to get a bit annoyed now. Sat watching the news today (never a good idea) to watch a Labour MP state the public is ill informed about Brexit - REALLY! Do they realise however little they think of the British public we think even less of them - A LOT LESS.