Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[MatskiMonk]

20th to the 7th


https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

Lazy bastards.

To suggest that all of those who didn't vote or who were not eligible to vote should be counted as if they voted to stay in is a bogus argument -

I didn't suggest this is, or should be the case, simply that all this talk of the will of the people or the country is bogus. It's objectively not, you can only prove what people did do, and the people that did vote for Brexit are the minority.

Perhaps it is too late to raise this argument, but it doesn't change the fact that our democracy means that at pretty much no stage is the majority represented.

 

[Lizard]

Not a lover of democracy then? All this sounds like the general played on repeat misconception that leavers are all a bunch of uneducated bigoted hillbillies that had no idea what they were voting for and were totally conned by two men and a bus. 17 and a half million people, all idiots.

Since when has democracy been about the will of the people? You elect people to represent you, not parrot your views.

It like if you get represented in court. Do you expect the solicitor to parrot everything you believe even if it convinces the jury you are guilty when you aren't?

 

[Robin]

Since when has democracy been about the will of the people? You elect people to represent you, not parrot your views.

It like if you get represented in court. Do you expect the solicitor to parrot everything you say even if it convinces the jury you are guilty when you aren't?

This vote was a one person one vote one question deal which is the purest form of the will of the people and the purest form of democracy.

Your argument refers to things like a UK general election where, yes, you elect someone who will hopefully represent but not expressly parrot your views.

 

[baldgye]

The entire UK fishing industry for one, any company (and its employees) that wants to forge trade deals with the rest of the world but can't unless its done under EU terms for another.

Why did you narrow that down to fishing, that’s all trade deals in industry. But it’s a law that also helps protect us from other Eu countries trying to undercut us?

Was that it, leave the whole of the EU so we can trade fish against anyone? Sacrifice everything for our fish industry?

 

[TenEightyOne]

The entire UK fishing industry for one, any company (and its employees) that wants to forge trade deals with the rest of the world but can't unless its done under EU terms for another.

Companies that want to trade any goods at all in the EU (whoever else they're trading with, and I'm sure Scandinavia, Canada, the US and China are doing quite well for fish) still have to trade under EU law. That's the same as any EU country wanting to trade with a truly isolated Britain having to comply with our law in manufacturing, quality, packing, shipping, billing and so on.

This vote was a one person one vote one question deal

And two countries voted to remain (one of which has a lot to lose in terms of civil unrest if they leave). The more I hear from Westminster the more I'm astonished at how short some memories are. Or how little they care.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thats ridiculous, for that matter every democratic vote in history on leadership, government and laws had people, often a large amount of people, that didn't vote... does that de-legitimise the outcome of all of those desions?

It should call into question the entire process, and to re-iterate my answer to your earlier question, no, I'm not a fan of our current democracy. But, anyway... in simple terms, Leaver's do not have the mandate they claim to, you already have the chaos you wanted, you don't need to claim that it's on behalf of anyone it wasn't.

If they threw away their vote when they had every opportunity to then they don't have a voice, pure and simple.

Like I said, facile. Unless that persons contribution to, and take from, the state - at every conceivable level - is removed, then they have to be accounted for, whether they chose to vote or not. They are not exempt from Healthcare, VAT, income tax, corporation tax, they are not exempt from using the roads, having their bins collected or from getting a response from the emergency services if they dial 999, they are not exempt from our laws or our judicial system and they are not exempt from the consequences of their actions... and you objectively cannot count them in the number of people that voted to leave the EU, so you cannot claim to be arguing with the will of the country or the people. I'm not arguing that their voice be heard or not, I'm simply stating that they exist on a social, personal, emotional, economic, cultural and financial level... you seem to disagree, simply because they didn't vote.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The RHM for Brighton Kemptown takes the mace in symbolic protest at the lack of vote.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

 

[Lizard]

The RHM for Brighton Kemptown takes the mace in symbolic protest at the lack of vote.

I think that is more a dare, you can clearly see the guy next to him going 'I bet you can't'.

Still the reactions are interesting. The Tory's are sharpening the pitchforks and the entirety of the other parties are like, meh not exactly appropriate but is it really that bad?

 

[UKMikey]

Funny that such a slim majority is touted as "the people's opinion" and if it were overturned it would some how be going against "the will of the people".

It's like in Happy Ever After when June Fletcher invited her parents to stay and her husband Terry admonished her, "you can't just invite people over whenever you feel like it", to which she replied "Terry! Mother and Father aren't 'people'".

It seems like only those who agree with one's opinion are people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think that is more a dare, you can clearly see the guy next to him going 'I bet you can't'.

I think it was quite deliberate. The mace is symbolic of the ruling power of the New Parliament (since the end of the Republic and the seating of Charles II*) and removing it is a symbolic act that demonstrates a loss of confidence in the House, a protest that the house is not doing as it should. Without the mace the discussions of the House are no more important than arguments in a tavern and the Parliamentary Privilege is lost. The last time I can recall it happening is John McDonnell (in questions to the Labour government) in 2009. He was furious that the question of the Heathrow expansion was not put to the house and took the mace. The speaker was so angry that he immediately passed a motion. The usual punishment (found by Division, if necessary) is suspension from the remainder of the sitting... but if the protesting MP feels that business isn't being done properly then they're probably not too bothered.

Still the reactions are interesting. The Tory's are sharpening the pitchforks and the entirety of the other parties are like, meh not exactly appropriate but is it really that bad?

There may be a few MPs who aren't aware of the significance of the Queen's proxy presence in the chamber but I doubt there are many. Like all good disruptions there were probably a few people wishing they'd had the nerve to do the same.

EDIT: There's a rumour that Labour will have 40 MPs standing in tomorrow's session in order to request an emergency debate from the Speaker. He's likely to say yes. How exactly Labour will play this remains to be seen. My money is on "badly".

*And of the previous Parliament. Cromwell reputedly removed the 'original' mace calling it "a fool's bauble" when he forcibly dissolved Charles I's parliament just before the King's head accidentally fell off.

 

[Touring Mars]

I didn't suggest this is, or should be the case, simply that all this talk of the will of the people or the country is bogus. It's objectively not, you can only prove what people did do, and the people that did vote for Brexit are the minority.

I agree to a large extent, though unfortunately it appears that a simple majority in a two-question referendum is the simplest (though admittedly highly flawed) way of determining what the 'will of the people' is. Of course, the point is largely defeated by the fact that another referendum on the exact same question held tomorrow would likely yield a different result, since obviously the 'will of the people' is and never was written in stone. The trouble is, in order to seal any sort of deal on the EU withdrawal (or indeed our future relationship with the EU, either inside or outside) t needs to be written into law at some point, and that requires an assumption to be made that such laws have the support/consent of the people - in part the referendum was supposedly a mechanism by which the government were given direct public consent in advance of the negotiations, but (perhaps predictably) support for Brexit has waned over the course of the negotiations as the reality of what leaving the EU sets in - coupled with the incompetence of the UK government and the intransigence of the EU, that was always likely to happen.

 

[baldgye]

I agree to a large extent, though unfortunately it appears that a simple majority in a two-question referendum is the simplest (though admittedly highly flawed) way of determining what the 'will of the people' is. Of course, the point is largely defeated by the fact that another referendum on the exact same question held tomorrow would likely yield a different result, since obviously the 'will of the people' is and never was written in stone. The trouble is, in order to seal any sort of deal on the EU withdrawal (or indeed our future relationship with the EU, either inside or outside) t needs to be written into law at some point, and that requires an assumption to be made that such laws have the support/consent of the people - in part the referendum was supposedly a mechanism by which the government were given direct public consent in advance of the negotiations, but (perhaps predictably) support for Brexit has waned over the course of the negotiations as the reality of what leaving the EU sets in - coupled with the incompetence of the UK government and the intransigence of the EU, that was always likely to happen.

Maybe this was the plan all along?
May knew no one had any idea what Brexit actually meant and how to actually go through it, the government didn't even bother looking into it before enacting Art.50. Maybe this was all just a ploy by May (a Remainer) to make a total and utter cluster-**** of the whole situation to the point at which Brexit couldn't ever happen with out economically castrating the UK?

Though maybe I'm giving her too much credit

 

[Liquid]

It never rains...

 

[Touring Mars]

Sir John Major, the former Conservative Prime Minister, has called for Article 50 to be revoked immediately.

Frankly, it is the only option that makes sense if, as is extremely likely, Theresa May gets nowhere with the EU on softening the Irish backstop.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I know I'm jumping into this conversation from the side, but democracy is failing us by virtue of apathy, poor leadership, poor education, journalistic perversion and a flawed system of government.

Well yes. But apart from that it's good.

 

[UKMikey]

It never rains...

It looks like this is the only thing she's been able to lock in regarding Brexit.

 

[Lizard]

I think it was quite deliberate. The mace is symbolic of the ruling power of the New Parliament (since the end of the Republic and the seating of Charles II*) and removing it is a symbolic act that demonstrates a loss of confidence in the House, a protest that the house is not doing as it should. Without the mace the discussions of the House are no more important than arguments in a tavern and the Parliamentary Privilege is lost. The last time I can recall it happening is John McDonnell (in questions to the Labour government) in 2009. He was furious that the question of the Heathrow expansion was not put to the house and took the mace. The speaker was so angry that he immediately passed a motion. The usual punishment (found by Division, if necessary) is suspension from the remainder of the sitting... but if the protesting MP feels that business isn't being done properly then they're probably not too bothered.



There may be a few MPs who aren't aware of the significance of the Queen's proxy presence in the chamber but I doubt there are many. Like all good disruptions there were probably a few people wishing they'd had the nerve to do the same.

EDIT: There's a rumour that Labour will have 40 MPs standing in tomorrow's session in order to request an emergency debate from the Speaker. He's likely to say yes. How exactly Labour will play this remains to be seen. My money is on "badly".

*And of the previous Parliament. Cromwell reputedly removed the 'original' mace calling it "a fool's bauble" when he forcibly dissolved Charles I's parliament just before the King's head accidentally fell off.

I understand all that but at the other end of the scale, its a rod with some gold on. Removing it does nothing in the physical world, only the symbolic world. But yes I don't doubt there were many on the opposition benches that thought it was the correct thing to do.


And I thought the emergency debate was already agreed after Corbyn submitted an application and the speaker accepted it. Despite Tories shouting that he was out of time.

 

[Dotini]

British preppers stock up on nonperishable food in anticipation of No-Deal supply chain disruptions, possible hefty 8% (!) drop in GDP.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I understand all that but at the other end of the scale, its a rod with some gold on. Removing it does nothing in the physical world,

Perhaps if he'd have picked it up, ran forward, launched himself off the table of the house shouting "THIS IS BRIGHTON KEMPTOWN!!!!!" and thrown the mace like a javelin in an attempt to skewer Chris Bercow onto the speakers chair it would have had more effect.

 

[Dotini]

It's within the legal powers of Parliament to revoke the leave notification. Why don't they do that?

 

[Touring Mars]

It's within the legal powers of Parliament to revoke the leave notification. Why don't they do that?

Because the British people, when given the choice to stay or leave the EU, voted to leave.

It is good to know, however, that we can revoke Article 50 and essentially start the process from scratch again, since the way Brexit has been handled has been a shambles - not just because the UK government has been horribly indecisive, weak, and misguided at crucial stages, but also because the EU have a pretty warped idea of what leaving the EU should mean. The EU have said repeatedly that this is the 'only deal possible' (which is a plain lie) - but that involved the UK accepting a legally binding arrangement that keeps us effectively inside the EU's customs union permanently (or at least until the EU says we can leave) - sorry, but that was never, ever going to fly, even if the UK Prime Minister seemed to believe it would.

Article 50 should be revoked ASAP - but the question of Brexit, alas, will not go away so easily. The UK should come back to the table once there is a clear and agreed goal before triggering Article 50 again, instead of doing the entire thing back to front. (This was not helped by the EU's rules on how negotiations ought to proceed, that the UK also agreed to). The EU should accept that leave means leave and respect the sovereignty of the whole of the leaving member state, but also realise that it is nobody's interests to make trade between the EU and the leaving member state incredibly much harder. Both sides have been seriously at fault in the Brexit negotiations, and they both need to learn lessons from this debacle.

I heard a fascinating analysis this evening from a European MEP who also believes that the EU must shoulder much more responsibility, and also realise their own role in causing the referendum (and its result) in the first place. Sadly, they sound horribly optimistic when they suggested, quite rightly IMO, that if the EU want to avoid a disaster then they should be making the case for Remaining far, far more strongly than they are - but, instead, the EU is committed to a future path that appears to be almost entirely at odds with where the UK would like it to go - he said 'The UK joined a football club but the EU want to play golf'...

 

[Liquid]

It's within the legal powers of Parliament to revoke the leave notification. Why don't they do that?

It's embarrassing. Politicians hate losing face.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I understand all that but at the other end of the scale, its a rod with some gold on. Removing it does nothing in the physical world, only the symbolic world.

Society and law is all symbolic. Any QC in a dress and a wig can tell you that.

 

[Hun200kmh]

As I wrote a long time ago here in gtplanet, I have close family living and working in Scotland (in Edinburgh's Uni ) and that makes me follow all this with a very personal interest. That said, I know that I am a foreigner to this issue and I do hope nobody from the UK takes offense from my post, but if I cause any, I am sorry.

Wrote this today to an English friend with whom I have been trading emails for almost two years now. And I decided to share what I wrote with you (some adaptations were needed, I was a bit more blunt in a one-on-one conversation).

Brexit is one of those phenomena that keep on giving … and provides a fascinating look into the UK, especially into the UK's political class.

The way I see it, the UK is being run, for decades now, with a political class that found the EU to be the most convenient scapegoat for all their own mistakes, misjudgements, shortcomings, or (from whatever other source) policy problems.

It pays, politically, to blame the EU.

- Immigrants? EU
- Fishing? EU
- Banks? EU
- Terrorism? EU-ECJ
- Economy? EU and its PIIGS (yes, I know, I know … won't offend me)
- NHS? EU
- Employment? EU
- etc … all the way down to the straight banana and the fictional Eurosausage …


It all went ok for politicians up to the point when euroscepticism ceased to be just a convenient way to look patriotic, and became a real political problem, and a "real" political proposition, with its own party and all.

It was a small party, noisy but almost irrelevant, what's one seat in the Commons and a few in the … gasp … EU Parliament? It's all great fun, and there's an element of inner joy to watch those bureacrats in Strasbourg being pesked by the UKIPers, right?

But the unease at home started to grow a bit more. Slowly, but surely. The establishment had to either to appease the public or to allow it to become more and more estranged. And the latter wasn't an option.

So, a cunning plan was devised. The people, that same people that had been fed with 30+ years of "EU excuses", would be given a say.

We know what happened that June of 2016. And that result, regardless of what it meant regarding the EU, was in domestic terms the inevitable crack to a decades long self-sustained and almost unnacountable system.

Because - finally - the political class was left out in the cold, with no scapegoat to blame for its own inability to do what was asked of them: to Govern and to do as the people had ordered.

It's not that they didn't try to keep on with their "scapegoating". During 2 long years, the EU was vilified, called EUSSR and other nice epithets, Barnier was corrupt, Juncker was drunk, Tusk was a puppet, Merkel was the true UK Nemesis, but all that was no problem, the UK held all the best cards and the negotiations would not be a problem. Add to it that, were they to become a problem, it was a simple matter of saying: "No deal it is, we'll trade under WTO terms."

Somehow, with the passing of months and years, it became clear that something wasn't right. But - and here lies the fundamental difference from everything that had happened before - the UK politicians just couldn't blame the EU for it. They could "complain" about the EU negotiating team, but not exactly BLAME them. They could still call them names, call them corrupt and unelected bureaucrats … but they (the EU) had become the counterpart. So it became irrelevant and innefective as a defense strategy for the UK's politicians to hide their own ineptitude for the jobs they were holding.

And finally, we came to the pathological situation that lasts for months now. The Government limps, the PM has litle or no credibility left, at home or abroad, but she keeps going - doing her best at can-kicking - because NOBODY else wants to become PM of the UK now!

In truth, nobody knows exactly how to solve the Brexit conundrum and everyone knows that to be in charge of Brexit is to kill one's political career. If you backoff from Brexit you're ruined. If you try to present a deal, it either satisfies the EU and you're a traitor, or it satisfies the UK's politicians (and the newspapers they revere) and the EU will not accept it.

There's always the "No Deal" option. But it will harm the living standards of the population and therefore it will also ruin the political career of the one that has to implement it.

So, where does this all lead? I can't guess. But if I had to I'd say to one of three options:

- Calling a 2nd referendum with No deal or No Brexit (highly unlikely, there's no Parliament to vote for this)

- Article 50 extension with 2 years more (and who knows what will happen in 2021 … )

- No deal Brexit (an interesting prospect if you admire chaotic events and you don't live in the UK. Highly unlikely though, unless the UK's political class goes from simply inconsequential to totally mad)

So, I'm going with #2, an extension. It's nothing but kicking the can (again) but at least it is something every politician knows won't do great harm and might even possibly save them from trouble.

 

[Liquid]

I think it was quite deliberate. The mace is symbolic of the ruling power of the New Parliament (since the end of the Republic and the seating of Charles II*) and removing it is a symbolic act that demonstrates a loss of confidence in the House, a protest that the house is not doing as it should.

Tangentially, it's also reminiscent of James II's flight to France. He threw the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames during his escape to invalidate any future Acts of Parliament; no Act can be signed into law without royal assent and that requires the great seal as the sovereign's approval of acts passed. Without it, James was hoping to delay and stop Parliament from doing what it was trying to do.

Although in reality they simply went and got a new King and a new Seal and pretended like nothing had happened.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Hun200kmh Very interesting read 👍

Unfortunately, although I think an extension to Article 50 would be a far better option than crashing out with no deal, it is a fundamentally different proposition to revoking Article 50, because (absurdly) the UK have the legal right to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 whenever we want, but an extension (of any description) requires the unanimous agreement of all other 27 EU member states, and that is a very different kettle of fishing rights.

Personally, I would prefer revoking Article 50 rather than seek an extension, despite the fact that it would be an embarrassment, a humiliation, politically suicidal, endlessly controversial and ultimately perhaps solve nothing with regard to the UK's failed/failing marriage with the EU - but it would, at the very least, allow a reset and a cooling-off period for both sides, whereas a mere extension would just keep everything at fever pitch, and preclude the possibility of the EU and UK finding new common ground for a far more stable future relationship, either with the UK inside or outside of the EU.

 

[baldgye]

Agree with everything @Hun200kmh said bar the conclusion bit. I agree with @Touring Mars (unsurprisingly).

I can see a political u-turn that both manages to cancel Brexit and blame the EU for it. That said...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Agree with everything @Hun200kmh said bar the conclusion bit. I agree with @Touring Mars (unsurprisingly).

I can see a political u-turn that both manages to cancel Brexit and blame the EU for it. That said...

They mean it this time. Honestly, really, they mean it. They're going to do it. It's definitely going to happen. Really.

We'll see.

 

[Robin]

Apparently Graham Brady sees the PM regularly so his asking to see her tomorrow doesn't expressly confirm the vote but...

It's pretty likely given her jaunt to Europe today did nothing but enrage MP's. The EU leaders have stated time and time again that there will be no more negotiation on the deal so it was a pointless coffee morning.

Seeking 'reassurances' looks like a classic tactic of procrastination on May's part, why doesn't she read the document over and over again for good measure, waste another few days

It will be good to finally give the MP's a vote on something, even if it's over her job.