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

[villaglint]

51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

We need to jump out and we need to be out by the 31st.

Once we’re out, we can discuss the parachute, but lets get out first.

We’ll get a far better deal on a parachute once we’ve jumped. If we don’t jump, the parachute salesman won’t take us seriously.

Thing is it’s actually a tandem jump. The professional sky diver tried time and again to advise this poor hapless customer against the strategy sighting facts like the law of gravity and other high minded “expert” chat. At the end of the day the customer pays his wages and he’s made a decision. What are you going to do? 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

The risk he runs is that the Brexit Party don't see that as good enough, and stand against him.  Having alienated remainers, he can't now afford to have the hardline leavers vote for someone else.

There’s all kinds of risks. I’m not for a minute saying I think he’s right, or whatever, just how I think he’s behaving. He’s an absolute word removed.

[Enda]

3 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

But to what purpose .. other than presumably for someone to revoke article 50 ?

Honest answer: no, just discard the DUP and accept a NI-only backstop. Britain gets to leave the customs union, NI gets special economic status, and the EU gets no border in Ireland. Success.

[LondonLax]

47 minutes ago, Enda said:

Honest answer: no, just discard the DUP and accept a NI-only backstop. Britain gets to leave the customs union, NI gets special economic status, and the EU gets no border in Ireland. Success.

It’s not like there is any point to the DUP anymore now they are no longer giving the Tories a majority in parliament. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

12 hours ago, LondonLax said:

It’s not like there is any point to the DUP anymore now they are no longer giving the Tories a majority in parliament. 

Did the DUP ever get paid? I mean part of the deal was the DUP would get a nice dose of investment in NI from the government. As part of the coalition negotiations. I have no issue with that by the way, nothing wrong with getting investment in your constituencies. Just curious did NI get any extra money out of this coalition?

Edit: Link

Quote

Northern Ireland will receive an extra £1bn over the next two years as part of the deal that will see the Democratic Unionist Party's 10 MPs back Theresa May's minority government in Commons votes.

DUP leader Arlene Foster said the "wide-ranging" pact was "good for Northern Ireland and the UK" - so where will the money be spent?

The heart of the financial package is infrastructure spending - £400m of it over two years.

That is a significant sum given that Northern Ireland's annual infrastructure budget is about £1bn.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-40402184

 

[ml1dch]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Two conflicting views.

Convention is that the Lords don’t block the Commons, so they shouldn’t this time.

However, convention has somewhat gone down the river. So, they are trying to introduce a time limit / guillotine to the time frame to discuss the Bill. Which itself is unprecedented, to limit talk time in the Lords. 

The attempt to introduce a guillotine to insure convention appears to have upset a few. I think there’s a strong chance it will get talked out.

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.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

10 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Can we table a vonc in the opposition  

To be in power (Labour) with a 60+ majority where they can actually make a impact must look very far away from where they are now,  I suggest it will never be truly attainable whilst the current "Team" are in play. 

 

[tonyh29]

52 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

To be in power (Labour) with a 60+ majority where they can actually make a impact must look very far away from where they are now,  I suggest it will never be truly attainable whilst the current "Team" are in play. 

 

The latest rumour is Johnson might table a vonc in himself ... don’t know if the 21 expulsions have scuppered that plan though

 

could be a first where a government call on confidence in itself and the opposition vote to say no 

[peterms]

If, a couple of years ago, you had suggested this would be the schedule of events for the day for our government, someone would have thought you to be delirious.

Quote

9.30am: Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

10am: The high court hears the legal challenge brought by Gina Miller and others against Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks.

10.30am: Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, makes a Commons statement on next week’s Commons business.

11am: Johnson holds talks with the Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, in Downing Street.

After 11am: Peers will debate a new business motion, designed to ensure that the Benn bill intended to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October passes all its Lords stages by 5pm tomorrow.

12pm: Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister in charge of no-deal planning, gives evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.

12.15pm: Johnson holds talks with the US vice-president, Mike Pence, in Downing Street.

Afternoon: Johnson gives a speech outside London.

 

[LondonLax]

1 hour 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.

Couldn’t Labour wait until the bill has passes then decide they’d actually rather hold an election in November after all?

[snowychap]

44 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

The latest rumour is Johnson might table a vonc in himself ... don’t know if the 21 expulsions have scuppered that plan though

 

could be a first where a government call on confidence in itself and the opposition vote to say no 

That would be utterly daft of him, I think.

In that circumstance, I'd say the advice to HMQ (not from the rogue PM and his ministers, obviously) would be to expect his resignation and, if it was not forthcoming, to sack him and appoint someone else to try and form a government (in the 14 day period post the VONC vote).

[Chindie]

Calling a VONC in yourself is an hilariously bad look.

[desensitized43]

Given the numbers that exist now am I right in saying a Lab, LD, Green, SNP alliance following in the 14 days following a VONC to form a temporary "extend A50" government is possible?

[snowychap]

 

[snowychap]

For the Miller case this morning, Joshua Rozenberg will be live tweeting:

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[Chindie]

[lapal_fan]

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. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

 

51 minutes ago, peterms said:

12.15pm: Johnson holds talks with the US vice-president, Mike Pence, in Downing Street.

Wild guess,  Trade Deal threat via Pence,  "if no deal is off the table for my mate Barry,  I mean Boris so he can't negotiate like me the Donald, then no BIG and I mean BIGGEST deal you ave ever seen"

[snowychap]

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):

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by snowychap

[cyrusr]

13 minutes 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.