The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[desensitized43]

With a functioning brain this isn't usually my publication of choice but even I have to say this is a great headline.

[snowychap]

Dominic Casciani also live tweeting from the High Court:

 

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Whilst the Miller case is going on, the appeal hearing in Scotland is also being heard (this tweet feeds in to the above stuff about Boughty's question):

 

 

[bickster]

Some more diesel, nothing new but just restating what has already been said to tell Michael Gove he's a liar

Quote

Retailers have warned that there will be shortages of fresh food coupled with potential price rises if there is a no-deal Brexit.

The body representing supermarkets and other chains told MPs that they could not understand why Michael Gove had claimed otherwise in a BBC interview over the weekend.

Fresh food travelling into the UK from the EU will not be subject to checks, but delays caused by checks on the French side could mean perishables such as tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower and cheese could all be hit by delays.

“It will affect fresh food in various ways, availability, shelf life and potentially cost,” said Andrew Opie, the director of food and sustainability of the British Retail Consortium.

Moron Grauniad

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, lapal_fan said:

I enjoyed the seamstresses from Port Talbot giving their very strong Leave opinions on the radio earlier. 

Life will be way easier for them on their £16k a year salaries after we leave, and I'm sure all the cheaper factories elsewhere around the globe will fold, because who doesn't want to pay twice the amount for the same stuff? 

People who support leave on the basis of the vote 3 years ago are a bit mental aren't they?  Both sides of that referendum lied about the impacts of remaining and leaving.  

Since then it's split the country in half, I think the pound (since it's mini recovery) has gone down the pan, large companies have committed to leaving, there are serious doubts about food/medicines, good luck getting a pay-rise - and people still say "year but Leave won, so we MUST leave". 

Is it stubbornness?  Is it a lack of understanding?  Is it the that people cannot admit they got it wrong and won't change their minds?  Is it that they still genuinely believe we'll be better off once we leave, even if we leave with no-deal?  

I voted remain (because globalism is growing, not shrinking), but I've still always been open to changing my mind, and for a 2 week period in 2018, I was like "well, what's the worse that could happen?", then I started to have a look around, look at different news sources, look at MP's social medias and see what they're saying and to be honest, I still don't really see any advantage in the short term, or medium term that the UK will be better off in any metric we could measure against.

I've seen arguments that we export more than we import, that the EU would still be desperate to trade with us because we buy loads of cars etc - fair enough, those arguments may be true, but if we dump out on WTO rates, we'll face large import/export tariffs (making stuff we sell/buy even less valuable).  Then I've heard "but we'll get a quick trade deal with the EU, or the USA, or Canada etc, but it took the EU and Canada 7 years to sign-off on a trade deal.  Do we really want USA standards coming to the shores?  They add plastics to toothpaste to ensure the three colours in it don't mix.. They famously wash their chickens in Chlorine, they use pesticides on fruit and veg that are banned in the EU because they contain carcinogenic substances... is that good? 

Now we address the "well what do the EU do for us, that we couldn't do for ourselves?" then you have the whole "bigger basket, more leverage" argument, the EU standards actually try and protect it's populations (albeit with silly things like bent banana's.. such is the bureaucracy of it).  Then we have these "evil" unelected MEPs, whom are actually elected in the main, but there are unelected people within the system.  Then we have the argument that we have to abide by these silly rules which the UK may not want to abide by (but why not, I'm not sure).  We pay a lot of money to be in the club, but it turns out that (proportionally) it's actually a very, very low amount of our taxes (0.7p/£).  But the advantages arguably outweigh that cost.  We do have a say in EU elections and decision making, and by keeping the pound rather than adopting the Euro (which was touted in 2000), we actually see a little advantage when UK people travel in the EU.  

This has gone on for longer than I wanted, but it shows you that the argument in which we were allowed to vote on, didn't really cover the gargantuan impacts that the result affects.  Back to my original point, why would a Seamstress, working in Port Talbot for 30 years need or want to know about this?  All she probably saw in her news was "unelected EU MPs decide UK laws.  We would be a stronger, more autonomous country if we were to leave".  In which case, we never really stood a chance. 

This will go on and on for years, and only a war will distract us from the issue.  We're split, we all need to be reconnected.   

We were given duff information, information intended to scare, and it works.. History shows it works, and it's worked again. 

Politically, we're screwed.  For an unknown number of years. 

Great post. The part highlighted is key for me. Voting leave was always going to mean short to medium term pain for potential improvement in the long term. 

If people that voted leave expected an overnight improvement to their lives then they f**ked up. 

[StefanAVFC]

10 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Great post. The part highlighted is key for me. Voting leave was always going to mean short to medium term pain for potential improvement in the long term. 

If people that voted leave expected an overnight improvement to their lives then they f**ked up. 

By long term, how long do you mean?

Also, if you remember June 27th, people thought that voting leave immediately meant less foreigners.

Still can't believe a vote like this went to us plebs.

Edited September 5, 2019 by StefanAVFC

[blandy]

4 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Looks like a deal has been done. Presumably the Government lets the bill through, Corbyn allows the election to happen mid-October and Johnson gets to campaign from a position of relative strength - and if he wins can just scrap the Benn legislation anyway.

I have a more cynical take. Mine is that the "accidental" lack of tellers at the count of the vote on the Kinnock amendment (bring back May's deal for another looking at and vote) was utterly deliberate. Once that was in the Bill to go to the Lords, that was going to be extensively filibustered, the ned to filibuster it went away. They did a bit of filibustering so as not to arouse suspiscion, but that's all. By a mix of accident and cunning once the accident happened, Johnson has got his escape route now. All the election stuff, the stop/allow no deal stuff - he doesn't need it any more for the core aim of his plan - get a deal, of some sort, back to the Commons to be voted on, go through and then call an election.

It's not foolproof of course, the commons might again reject the May deal, then he's be up poo creek again, but his bet, I reckon was always that if he got something for them to vote on, they'd cave.

If no deal is blocked, then there's the risk that May's dela can also be blocked with less risk by the rest of the MPs and Johnson sent back to ask for a better deal. Which is sort of where we were when he took over. Snakes and ladders, with an awful lot of snakes in cabinet.

 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

By long term, how long do you mean?

Also, if you remember June 27th, people thought that voting leave immediately meant less foreigners.

Still can't believe a vote like this went to us plebs.

Who knows!  We’ll probably realise it was good to leave (if we do) when the Italian debt crisis rears it’s ugly heard again. Maybe by then we will be in a better position to react to it. 

Cant disagree with the bold part. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Vive_La_Villa said:

Who knows!  

And that sums it up..

'It will be good in the long term but I don't know when but short/medium term will be horrendous'.

[Xann]

Medical friends have been discussing what supplies might run short post Brexit?

They suspect HRT meds could become quite scarce?

 

 

 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

And that sums it up..

'It will be good in the long term but I don't know when but short/medium term will be horrendous'.

It’s hard to predict how long central banks will keep bailing out countries that are showing no economic improvement year by year. 

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, Xann said:

Medical friends have been discussing what supplies might run short post Brexit?

They suspect HRT meds could become quite scarce?

 

 

 

 

Time sensitive medicines are the 'fun' ones. The ones you can't stockpile. Stuff like radioactive isotopes used for cancer treatment. Has a useable lifetime measured in hours, use after which would only harm the patient. We import them. Imagine what would happen if it suddenly gets a lot harder to get that stuff through the ports.

[ml1dch]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

I have a more cynical take. Mine is that the "accidental" lack of tellers at the count of the vote on the Kinnock amendment (bring back May's deal for another looking at and vote) was utterly deliberate. Once that was in the Bill to go to the Lords, that was going to be extensively filibustered, the ned to filibuster it went away. They did a bit of filibustering so as not to arouse suspiscion, but that's all. By a mix of accident and cunning once the accident happened, Johnson has got his escape route now. All the election stuff, the stop/allow no deal stuff - he doesn't need it any more for the core aim of his plan - get a deal, of some sort, back to the Commons to be voted on, go through and then call an election.

It's not foolproof of course, the commons might again reject the May deal, then he's be up poo creek again, but his bet, I reckon was always that if he got something for them to vote on, they'd cave.

If no deal is blocked, then there's the risk that May's dela can also be blocked with less risk by the rest of the MPs and Johnson sent back to ask for a better deal. Which is sort of where we were when he took over. Snakes and ladders, with an awful lot of snakes in cabinet.

 

Happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that you're looking at the wrong time frame.

The amendment creates the requirement for another vote on the DWA, during the new extension period.

So, to get to that stage we will have had (a) an extension to the A50 window and almost certainly (b) an election. 

So Johnson doesn't really get anything out of it. If it comes up, he will either have a majority for what he wants already or been removed from office.

No new vote on May's deal happens this side of November 1st.

Edited September 5, 2019 by ml1dch

[Villan_of_oz]

The 2nd cousin Brexiter is now making enquiries about citizenship here...... He is now trying to leave the country he helped screw over

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Time sensitive medicines are the 'fun' ones. The ones you can't stockpile. Stuff like radioactive isotopes used for cancer treatment. Has a useable lifetime measured in hours, use after which would only harm the patient. We import them. Imagine what would happen if it suddenly gets a lot harder to get that stuff through the ports.

Not to worry, the Moggster said we can just fly them in. Problem solved. 

[LondonLax]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

I have a more cynical take. Mine is that the "accidental" lack of tellers at the count of the vote on the Kinnock amendment (bring back May's deal for another looking at and vote) was utterly deliberate. Once that was in the Bill to go to the Lords, that was going to be extensively filibustered, the ned to filibuster it went away. They did a bit of filibustering so as not to arouse suspiscion, but that's all. By a mix of accident and cunning once the accident happened, Johnson has got his escape route now. All the election stuff, the stop/allow no deal stuff - he doesn't need it any more for the core aim of his plan - get a deal, of some sort, back to the Commons to be voted on, go through and then call an election.

It's not foolproof of course, the commons might again reject the May deal, then he's be up poo creek again, but his bet, I reckon was always that if he got something for them to vote on, they'd cave.

If no deal is blocked, then there's the risk that May's dela can also be blocked with less risk by the rest of the MPs and Johnson sent back to ask for a better deal. Which is sort of where we were when he took over. Snakes and ladders, with an awful lot of snakes in cabinet.

 

 

I’m still a bit confused about this amendment. 

It’s not referring to May’s agreement exactly but the revised version that she started discussing with Labour before she was brought down and which never went to a vote. It has provisions for a potential customs union and room for a second referendum included. 

I’m also a bit confused about whit compels the government to do. On first look it seems it requires a vote after the extension has been granted but some assessments I’ve seen seem to say it doesn’t require a vote at all and instead just requires the PM to tell the EU the extension is because of a vote on this agreement, not that the vote actually has to happen. 

[desensitized43]

So on a scale of 1 to 10 how damaging would you consider an announcement from your own brother that he doesn't believe you're acting in the national interest?

Just another normal day in Johnson-land 

[Davkaus]

I'm surprised Jo Johnson seems to be getting a collective pat on the back.

He was put in an awkward position of the country vs his brother, and he choose to abandon his role rather than grow a pair and oppose his brother. He's stuck the knife in as a parting shot, but it seems like absolute cowardice to resign rather than oppose. 

[villa4europe]

not sure why this question has never occurred to me before

Brexit was yes or no every voted counted, 17.4m vs whatever it was

the MPs voting is obviously slightly different though thanks to the varying sizes of constituencies 

if every one of the 650 MPs voted in line with the will of their constituency how would a house of parliament Brexit vote look?

im interested if the argument that MPs "aren't voting for the will of the people" is actually skewed and because the vote was so close if voting for the will of their constituents actually tips it in favour of remain 

Edited September 5, 2019 by villa4europe

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The amendment creates the requirement for another vote on the DWA, during the new extension period.

I saw talk last night that it doesn't even do that.