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

[desensitized43]

16 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The Lib Dems are effectively being offered a dream scenario, but are rejecting it. An election, when they're on a resurgence. An opportunity to prevent Brexit, their key policy...

As ever, Corbyn is a greater evil than Brexit.

Tbf he's behaving like the idiot that he is. He can't be PM without the formal support of at least 3 other parties and informal help from a minority of another parties members.

That letter isn't an "offer" of any scenario. It's him dictating his terms. That letter should have been an offer to have a discussion around what could be done. The Lib Dems/SNP/Greens don't need a general election. They need either another referendum or revocation. A GE could conceivably leave us no better off and possibly worse.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Tbf he's behaving like the idiot that he is. He can't be PM without the formal support of at least 3 other parties and informal help from a minority of another parties members.

That letter isn't an "offer" of any scenario. It's him dictating his terms. That letter should have been an offer to have a discussion around what could be done. The Lib Dems/SNP/Greens don't need a general election. They need either another referendum or revocation. A GE could conceivably leave us no better off and possibly worse.

Perhaps it shoulf be about what the country needs - or rather what the country doesn't need, i.e. leaving without an agreement on 31st October?

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

That letter isn't an "offer" of any scenario. It's him dictating his terms.

There's also the fact that if the offer to do this was genuine

a) there was no need to make it public until there was an agreement and...

b) why would it matter who was in charge if the genuine aim was solely to get extension, call a GE and have a 2nd ref. It matters not a jot who the leader is

So Labour as bad as LibDems, all three of the main parties are putting the party before country... colour me shocked

[desensitized43]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Perhaps it shoulf be about what the country needs - or rather what the country doesn't need, i.e. leaving without an agreement on 31st October?

IMO if he's going to insist on an election the price should be this...

They should pass a law that the UK can only be taken out of the EU on a no deal basis if MP's have explicitly given consent in parliament.

That will protect the country from Boris/another throbber going to the country and spouting all the lies we've heard before and then using that election/vote as a mandate to do something damaging.

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

b) why would it matter who was in charge if the genuine aim was solely to get extension, call a GE and have a 2nd ref. It matters not a jot who the leader is

I'm sure Corbyn (and his supporters) would say the same thing.

So how about the leader of the second largest party in the Commons?

Edited August 15, 2019 by ml1dch

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

IMO if he's going to insist on an election the price should be this...

They should pass a law that the UK can only be taken out of the EU on a no deal basis if MP's have explicitly given consent in parliament.

The SNP tabled an amendment doing exactly that back in March.

Labour were whipped not to support it.

"I would do anything..."

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'm sure Corbyn (and his supporters) would say the same thing.

So how about the leader of the second largest party in the Commons?

Sure, which is my point, all three parties, in it for themselves

[snowychap]

30 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

IMO if he's going to insist on an election the price should be this...

They should pass a law that the UK can only be taken out of the EU on a no deal basis if MP's have explicitly given consent in parliament.

There are several things here but the chief amongst them are Parliamentary Supremacy, i.e. no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and that how we leave the EU is a matter of EU law, i.e. we can pass whatever legislation in the UK Parliament we want but unless we revoke, extend the A50 process or decide upon a withdrawal agreement with the EU we leave on the agreed date (whenever that may be) without a 'deal'.

Such a deal, therefore, would be meaningless if a GE were held and majority government came in that decided that their policy would be to take the UK out with no 'deal' agreed and that had the support of a majority of MPs (the make-up of the next Parliament likely to be different from the current one and there being no guarantee that there wouldn't be a majority okay with going 'no deal').

It would also be meaningless if legislation were passed and we didn't do any of the things that are practically required for us not to leave the EU without an agreement being reached - no matter what UK legislation said, our membership of the EU and the terms on which we leave it are not decided unilaterally within UK legislation.

Edited August 15, 2019 by snowychap

[desensitized43]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There are several things here but the chief amongst themm are Parliamentary Supremacy, i.e. no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and that how we leave the EU is a matter of EU law, i.e. we can pass whatever legislation in the UK Parliament we want but unless we revoke, extend the A50 process or decide upon a withdrawal agreement with the EU we leave on the agreed date (whenever that may be) without a 'deal'.

Such a deal, therefore, would be meaningless if a GE were held and majority government came in that decided that their policy would be to take the UK out with no 'deal' agreed and that had the support of a majority of MPs (the make-up of the next Parliament likely to be different from the current one and there being no guarantee that there wouldn't be a majority okay with going 'no deal').

It would also be meaningless if legislation were passed and we didn't do any of the things that are practically required for us not to leave the EU without an agreement being reached - no matter what UK legislation said, our membership of the EU and the terms on which we leave it are not decided unilaterally within UK legislation.

Re. Parliamentary Supremacy - Surely if there's a law that says "if you want to do x you must do y" and they don't follow that law, then by the letter of EU law (A50) we'd still go out but there'd be some legal force to "go after" those responsible at a later time.

Re. Parliamentary majority - Even if a majority government were elected they'd still need a large proportion of those MPs to vote for something. At that point parliament has had it's say and they can't point to a dodgy mandate from 2016 and use it as a pretext to destroy the country.

 

I accept that the default destination of A50 can't be changed unilaterally but I'd be interested to know if there was a way in UK law we could bind a government to get fully informed consent from parliament to go for the no WA option. If they can't do that then in UK law they'd have to withdraw or extend.

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

It would also be meaningless if legislation were passed and we didn't do any of the things that are practically required for us not to leave the EU without an agreement being reached - no matter what UK legislation said, our membership of the EU and the terms on which we leave it are not decided unilaterally within UK legislation.

If a law were passed that in the event of no other agreement having parliamentary support by date [exit day minus one day] then the Prime Minister was obligated to revoke the A50 notification - then that would be fully within the remit of UK legislation.

[desensitized43]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

If a law were passed that in the event of no other agreement having parliamentary support by date [exit day minus one day] then the Prime Minister was obligated to revoke the A50 notification - then that would be fully within the remit of UK legislation.

Exactly this.

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

If a law were passed that in the event of no other agreement having parliamentary support by date [exit day minus one day] then the Prime Minister was obligated to revoke the A50 notification - then that would be fully within the remit of UK legislation.

Indeed. But that other step (what the legislation required) would still need to be done.

Merely by having UK legislation say 'x' (or even 'x' must be done) doesn't make 'x' happen.

The Government not abiding by legislation already passed is not uncommon - okay in something this huge and grave, it may be but...

[bannedfromHandV]

I'm pretty sure Corbyn wants Brexit as much as the next Tory.

It's an illusion of choice to keep us from kicking off about it too much.

 

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Re. Parliamentary Supremacy - Surely if there's a law that says "if you want to do x you must do y" and they don't follow that law, then by the letter of EU law (A50) we'd still go out but there'd be some legal force to "go after" those responsible at a later time.

And what would that matter, practically? Great, we could 'go after' someone and what? We would still be out without a 'deal'.

And the point again is that if what they want to do is the default then Parliament could stamp its feet however much it wants and put an apparent obstacle in tghe way but would it practically be an obstacle?

But you've rather missed my point - any legislation passed upon which an agreement by parties within this current Parliament is based ceases to have the same effect, necessarily, after a GE when a new Parliament takes its seats.

Yes, it may be law but, if a new Parliament deems that law not to be what it wants, then they repeal it. It therefore isn't any sort of guarantee. Obviously there may be political costs in that kind of decision but that may not amount to much.

20 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Re. Parliamentary majority - Even if a majority government were elected they'd still need a large proportion of those MPs to vote for something. At that point parliament has had it's say and they can't point to a dodgy mandate from 2016 and use it as a pretext to destroy the country.

Yes, that's true. Again, the point here is that having a GE means that a new intake of MPs occurs and there can be no guarantee about the make up of the Commons after that election.

Quote

I accept that the default destination of A50 can't be changed unilaterally but I'd be interested to know if there was a way in UK law we could bind a government to get fully informed consent from parliament to go for the no WA option. If they can't do that then in UK law they'd have to withdraw or extend.

I can't see how that could be done because the default is not at the behest of the UK. It's the result of the A50 process.

Yes, they could in the first week of Parliament's return after the summer recess pass legislation that says pretty much all of the above but if the government decides not to play ball then what do you do? What remedies are available and how quickly can they take place? You could go through all of the correct processes (legal recourse/advising the queen to dismiss the PM and install another/give power in the legislation to someone outside of government to be the representative to revoke or ask for an extension/anything else) but if that action takes place after the deadline then I think it's going to take some serious work from the EU to accomodate that. They may well be quite keen to do it politically but whether they'd legally be able is another matter. We won't be Arsenal registering a transfer late, I don't think.

[HanoiVillan]

Some points on this:

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

A GE could conceivably leave us no better off and possibly worse.

It's hard to see how it could, when the current trajectory is the government deliberately leaving without a deal (ie, the worst-case scenario). Looking at the three major parties platforms in turn:

1) The Conservatives are, in practical terms, committed to No Deal, the worst-possible outcome. 

2) The Lib Dems are committed to a second referendum, between No Deal (the worst-possible outcome) and Remain (the best-case scenario (actually I'm not sure I believe that anymore, but let's run with it anyway)).

3) Labour are now committed to a second referendum between whatever soft Brexit they negotiate (a middling outcome) or Remain (the best-possible outcome). 

In other words, a GE won by the Tories leaves us no worse off than we are now, hurtling towards No Deal, and a GE won by Labour provides a second referendum (which remainers keep saying they want) in which the worst-possible outcome is not one of the options. This is a significant improvement on the alternatives, and at this point, Labour's policy is the best one for the interests of remainers. 

1 hour ago, bickster said:

there was no need to make it public until there was an agreement

The need is for pressure on the other parties. As we have seen, Swinson's instinct is to say no. She presumably said no behind closed doors as well. But it's just possible that enough pressure will be placed on her by her own party activists and advisors to change her mind; that pressure cannot be created if nobody knows about the offer. 

1 hour ago, bickster said:

why would it matter who was in charge if the genuine aim was solely to get extension, call a GE and have a 2nd ref. It matters not a jot who the leader is

This isn't right IMO. Firstly, Corbyn can bring a much larger number of MP's with him to vote No Confidence than any alternative, by an order of magnitude. This includes the large group of pro-Leave Labour members of the Ronnie Campbell ilk, who number more than Lib Dems + Plaid + CHUK + independents put together, and certainly aren't going to be voting for a Caroline Lucas government. Secondly, the way governments are formed is through the Queen inviting an individual to form it. How does Caroline Lucas or Ken Clarke or whoever prove that they have the backing of 'X' number of MP's? Clearly they can't, reliably, so it needs to be a party leader. 

[ml1dch]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Secondly, the way governments are formed is through the Queen inviting an individual to form it. How does Caroline Lucas or Ken Clarke or whoever prove that they have the backing of 'X' number of MP's? Clearly they can't, reliably, so it needs to be a party leader. 

Motion goes down along the lines of "this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government and seeks that a new cross-party Government be formed by the Rt. Hon member for [x]"

In the current reality that wouldn't happen for obvious reasons, and you wouldn't table the motion unless you'd done enough horse-trading to know the MP in question would have enough support.

But that's (presumably) the "how" part.

 

Edited August 15, 2019 by ml1dch

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

The Lib Dems are effectively being offered a dream scenario, but are rejecting it.

They're not, though, being offered a dream scenario. It's perhaps a dream scenario for Corbyn "make me PM". 

On planet earth, for a plan to work it has to be one that is able to add up.

There is no way that enough Tories will go for "Corbyn as PM" for it to be feasible as a genuine possibility. It would be like Labour saying "yeah, sure, Let's have Prit Patel or Jacob Mogg as temporary PM" - these characters are so divisive as to be unfeasible as potential PM .

So the "proposal" is far from a dream scenario, it's (again) Labour playing games

"here's a Unicorn"

"Oh, you turned the Unicorn down - look everyone at the nasty other lot, vote for me" 

If anyone wants to stop Brexit/No deal Brexit, then picking someone in favour of that thing is about the dumbest move they could do.

 

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The Conservatives are, in practical terms, committed to No Deal, the worst-possible outcome.

It's just my perception, but no, absolutely not. They're not.

It's like this (in my view, with some back up from known facts)

The tories want and alsways have wanted Brexit (since the Ref). May tried to get a deal through parliament, her deal failed 3 times because of her red lines and because, specifically the throbbers hate the backstop. The throbbers said "the backstop has to go" they don't much care about the rest of the deal, it's hard enough for them.

Boris Johnson voted for the May deal at the last vote.

The throbbers have always claimed that they want a deal, but that the EU has to believe we are prepared to walk away, that "no deal" has to be kept on the table as a negotiating strategy. That the EU has to believe we mean it.

Johnson's strategy since he came in has been to do exactly what the thobbers have been saying needed to be done - make the EU believe we mean we're OK with no deal. By definition, this means others also have to believe we are OK with no deal.

That's all all this is. It's an enactment of the throbber negotiating tactic. They hope the EU will crack a bit, offer them something, then they'll put it to parliament, and they hope that the "threat" of no deal, plus the tweak from the EU will get basically May's deal (with the tweak) through parliament by 31 October.

That's been (in my eyes) transparent since Johnson took over. He/they don't actually  mean or want no deal. It's their act, their game. They're spending moey and time and effort to try to scare enough EU people. That's all this is. Playing throbby games.

It actually aids them, to an extent when opposition or media raise how terrible it all is and how the tories are going to no deal Brexit - it helps with the perception it's "real".

But their desire, the real one, is for a revised deal. The "commitment" to no deal is entirely fake (apart from a tiny handful of full on nutters).

The two big risks they have, are that either they scare enough moderate Tory MPs into siding with the opposition parties and they hoof out Johnson as a consequence, or that the EU calls their bluff, and caught between a lie and a hard place, they have to follow their own lie (though I believe that actaully would be stopped, one way or another) . Either way they're utterly goosed, ultimately.

 

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Labour's policy is the best one for the interests of remainers. 

I'm really not sure how you came by that conclusion. I much prefer 2nd Referendum without any unicorns (LibDem & Green) to Labour's second referendum with added unicorns (renegotiate deal)

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Labour's policy is the best one for the interests of remainers. 

Remainers want to remain, not leave via a Unicorn Labour soft Brexit deal. Labour can't even decide what the referendum would ask, or what their policy would be on the options.