Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Hacker Khan]

I guess that's politics - try to appeal to as many people as you can and present things selectively in different places. Problem is that for decades, who else were the folk in Northern Cities going to vote for? Ultimately Labour took those votes for granted, often sending metropolitan types north in suits north to become their local MP (Tony Blair, Sedgefield; Ed Milliband, Donacaster etc.).

When Brexit was on offer, a lot of those people clearly thought 'why not, can't be any worse'. Didn't help that Corbyn wasn't exactly out in Blackburn and Hull high streets with his soap box, shouting the benefits of the EU to those folk.

Now, these people have pretty much left Labour. Of course, they aren't going to vote for the Tories - because 'Thatcher, mines, car factories etc'. But UKIP / BP / Farage, don't quite have that baggage.

Labour would be far better off leaving those folk to it. Maybe holding onto some of the seats, with good local candidates or 3 way marginals. And then adopt a far more 'Islington' approach. Appeal to the cosmopolitan cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and university towns like Cambridge, Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle etc.

Other problem with that strategy is that the populations of these 'metropolitan' constituencies has grown, but the number of seats on offer has stayed the same.
it's why the likes of Corbyn and Abbot could win 40,000 votes in their London constituencies. But it only took Ed Miliband 25,000 in Doncaster North.

One thing that struck me was that Rees-Mogg's sister got in as a MEP in my patch of the woods and she said she'd been out on the streets of places like Mansfield listening to people's concerns. Now fair play to her and the party, they managed to get a lot of seats in the European elections. But I really can't see how she can empathise, how she can understand their concerns and challenges or have anything in the slightest bit in common with the average good burgers of Mansfield or the other towns she has visited, other than a distaste for Europe. Now that may well be enough for now, but I can't help thinking there are dark days ahead if (or IMHO when) it turns out that Europe was not the main thing holding back the economic regeneration in these areas.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I don't know if any of you read the clever Wings post, basically he is saying that the two main parties [ATM] do not want a vote of no confidence [GE] or a EU 2nd ref for reasons of being toast.
No Deal leave on Halloween is now virtually certain.

 

[chrisd]

No Deal leave on Halloween is now virtually certain.

I don't see why. If a leave PM is chosen, who makes it clear that No DEAL is DEFINITELY on the table then those who don't want a no deal will likely rally around a deal, hopefully a better one than Mays one

 

[robinthehood]

I don't see why. If a leave PM is chosen, who makes it clear that No DEAL is DEFINITELY on the table then those who don't want a no deal will likely rally around a deal, hopefully a better one than Mays one

Good luck with your new deal.

45

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I don't see why. If a leave PM is chosen, who makes it clear that No DEAL is DEFINITELY on the table then those who don't want a no deal will likely rally around a deal, hopefully a better one than Mays one

Can a “leave PM” do that ? Haven’t they had a vote already that means no deal and indeed if a No Deal was requested it still needs to go through HoC ?

The rules won’t change just because a PM who prefers to leave is voted in ? And what happens if a Remain PM is voted in again

And the EU have already said - this is the deal ?

Are people expecting a magic turnaround from the current mess when a new PM arrives ?

 

[ColchesterFC]

Can a “leave PM” do that ? Haven’t they had a vote already that means no deal and indeed if a No Deal was requested it still needs to go through HoC ?

The rules won’t change just because a PM who prefers to leave is voted in ? And what happens if a Remain PM is voted in again

In my understanding there is one way in which a No Deal exit could happen. Parliament have made it fairly clear that they won't accept a No Deal situation so it's virtually certain that it wouldn't receive enough votes to pass through the HoC. However, if an ardent Leaver became PM it is possible that they could call a general election within a certain time frame of 31st October, at which point Parliament shuts down for the campaigning period. As a result the clock would run down to 31st October and we'd be out with No Deal and I believe no way for it to be prevented.

While typing this I realised that there is possibly a second way it could happen. If nothing was agreed close to the end date, the new PM could ask the EU for a further extension. If they rejected it we could be out with No Deal as there likely wouldn't be time to get whatever was needed to revoke Article 50 through the HoC and into law.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Equally, the PM just runs the clock down. You reach Oct 31st, don't ask for an extension or let it be known that an extension will not change the situation. The EU either rip up the current deal and re-write it or the UK leaves with no deal.

The PM doesn't need No Deal to pass. They just need to reach Oct 31st without agreement.

The above may be simplistic, may also be wrong, but that is what Esther McVey suggested yesterday.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I don't see why. If a leave PM is chosen, who makes it clear that No DEAL is DEFINITELY on the table then those who don't want a no deal will likely rally around a deal, hopefully a better one than Mays one

They will have exactly 4 weeks to get a vote through Parliament, not a snowballs chance in hell.

 

[Grant85]

One thing that struck me was that Rees-Mogg's sister got in as a MEP in my patch of the woods and she said she'd been out on the streets of places like Mansfield listening to people's concerns. Now fair play to her and the party, they managed to get a lot of seats in the European elections. But I really can't see how she can empathise, how she can understand their concerns and challenges or have anything in the slightest bit in common with the average good burgers of Mansfield or the other towns she has visited, other than a distaste for Europe. Now that may well be enough for now, but I can't help thinking there are dark days ahead if (or IMHO when) it turns out that Europe was not the main thing holding back the economic regeneration in these areas.

I'd tend to agree. It will be very difficult for the Brexit Party to turn this into seats at a General Election. The voting system is one thing, but ultimately they are unlikely to have a high calibre of candidate and their policy platform will probably not exactly be a cohesive manifesto for government.

Personally feel a lot of people completely underestimate how difficult it is to be an MP, or a good one at least. In terms of the number of people you might have to deal with, some of whom you might not be able to help and others you might not want to help.

Britain, and England in particular, is hugely centralised in the South East. Government doesn't do enough to support the towns and cities that centred around decent industry in previous decades. Spending billions on London transport, Heathrow expansion, HS2 etc. pulls the focus even more into London.

Look at at economy like Germany. They have held onto their manufacturing base and now have a hugely skilled workforce pulled from all over Europe. The thing about manufacturing is that it tends to be spread out as it takes up a lot of floor space and so big plants develop away from city centres. This means jobs and economic activity are spread out around the country.

In London, you can have a few thousand financial services jobs turning over billions on a few floors in an office block. But this leaves towns like Mansfield completely detached from that economic boon.

 

[chrisd]

Can a “leave PM” do that ? Haven’t they had a vote already that means no deal and indeed if a No Deal was requested it still needs to go through HoC ?

The rules won’t change just because a PM who prefers to leave is voted in ? And what happens if a Remain PM is voted in again

And the EU have already said - this is the deal ?

Are people expecting a magic turnaround from the current mess when a new PM arrives ?

I'm not sure, and would stand corrected, but is the HOC vote for not allowing a no deal Brexit is not legally binding?

Others, since my post have shown how a no deal Brexit could be achieved although I dont see a new PM doing this.

I dont see why, say, a Boris wouldn't be able to get the Eu to open up the deal for renegotiation if he played a hardline with them as its clearly less in their interest to let us wander off with no deal and no payment

 

[Old Skier]

If it is a cunning plan it’s doomed to failure, Parliament has already voted against a No Deal Brexit and I’d suggest if they tried that there would be a motion tabled by the opposition parties to revoke Art 50.
Plus it really wouldn’t be a good start for a leader going against some of their own MP’s.

Parliament may have voted against a No Deal but our current masters, the EU have stated that we are out on the 31st Oct, deal or no deal.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I'm not sure, and would stand corrected, but is the HOC vote for not allowing a no deal Brexit is not legally binding?

Others, since my post have shown how a no deal Brexit could be achieved although I dont see a new PM doing this.

I dont see why, say, a Boris wouldn't be able to get the Eu to open up the deal for renegotiation if he played a hardline with them as its clearly less in their interest to let us wander off with no deal and no payment

Boris ?! Really ? Sorry but it surprises me that he manages to tie his shoe laces up

The EU hold all the cards - and they will imo quote happily let it just keep going on and on because they aren’t losing out and even when the deadline comes they will extend it with glee - they don’t want no deal and our MP’s don’t want a No Deal. And even if we did wander off we will have to pay money

 

[chrisd]

Boris ?! Really ? Sorry but it surprises me that he manages to tie his shoe laces up

The EU hold all the cards - and they will imo quote happily let it just keep going on and on because they aren’t losing out and even when the deadline comes they will extend it with glee - they don’t want no deal and our MP’s don’t want a No Deal. And even if we did wander off we will have to pay money

Well Boris is the favourite as I understand

The EU only hold the cards if we have no deal on the table

I agree that the EU would go on and on as we are but I'm pretty sure a new PM would not ask for a longer delay

We might have to pay for some pension contributions but the £39bn would not be paid imo

 

[Hobbit]

Boris ?! Really ? Sorry but it surprises me that he manages to tie his shoe laces up

The EU hold all the cards - and they will imo quote happily let it just keep going on and on because they aren’t losing out and even when the deadline comes they will extend it with glee - they don’t want no deal and our MP’s don’t want a No Deal. And even if we did wander off we will have to pay money

Why will the UK have to pay money? There's already been a ruling from the Law Lords stating that there's nothing in the EU rules that state commitments extend beyond a leave date. Equally, if a net receiver left, would the EU pay money for xx years to that country?

Don't get me wrong, I believe the UK should pay towards pensions and projects already agreed/started but I'm also aware there's nothing in the EU rules that say the UK should.

So why will the UK "have to pay money?"

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why will the UK have to pay money? There's already been a ruling from the Law Lords stating that there's nothing in the EU rules that state commitments extend beyond a leave date. Equally, if a net receiver left, would the EU pay money for xx years to that country?

Don't get me wrong, I believe the UK should pay towards pensions and projects already agreed/started but I'm also aware there's nothing in the EU rules that say the UK should.

So why will the UK "have to pay money?"

I believe that the EU will go to courts and we will end up having to pay a divorce bill as such, but if we walk away without paying a penny it imo will damage the UK reputation and people will imo avoid doing any sort of deal with us seeing how we acted with little regard and maybe honour to countries we have held strong bonds with over decades. We will lose any sort of standing on a global stage ( if we aren’t already a laughing stock ) - but I expect our MP’s whilst displaying a lack of integrity right now won’t be daft enough to walk away without paying a divorce bill.

 

[Hobbit]

I believe that the EU will go to courts and we will end up having to pay a divorce bill as such, but if we walk away without paying a penny it imo will damage the UK reputation and people will imo avoid doing any sort of deal with us seeing how we acted with little regard and maybe honour to countries we have held strong bonds with over decades. We will lose any sort of standing on a global stage ( if we aren’t already a laughing stock ) - but I expect our MP’s whilst displaying a lack of integrity right now won’t be daft enough to walk away without paying a divorce bill.

What is morally right and what is law, laid down in the EU rules are 2 different things. There isn't a divorce bill according to the Law Lords.

Just saying here's £39bn without some strings was, imo, a bit naive. I think it should be paid, or a proportion of it, and I think the UK could offer more as part of a negotiation. The EU are losing 14% of their budget contribution at a time when a number of the ECB's junk bonds are about to mature. The UK team, for whatever reason, didn't appear to use enough leverage around that.

 

[Dando]

I believe that the EU will go to courts and we will end up having to pay a divorce bill as such, but if we walk away without paying a penny it imo will damage the UK reputation and people will imo avoid doing any sort of deal with us seeing how we acted with little regard and maybe honour to countries we have held strong bonds with over decades. We will lose any sort of standing on a global stage ( if we aren’t already a laughing stock ) - but I expect our MP’s whilst displaying a lack of integrity right now won’t be daft enough to walk away without paying a divorce bill.

Isn’t the ransom part of the withdrawal agreement that our wonderful MP’s won’t vote through?

 

[Fade and Die]

Well Boris is the favourite as I understand

The EU only hold the cards if we have no deal on the table

I agree that the EU would go on and on as we are but I'm pretty sure a new PM would not ask for a longer delay

We might have to pay for some pension contributions but the £39bn would not be paid imo

We absolutely have to get no deal back in the table...you must have that threat and be prepared to do it......you can't negotiate buying
anything from a Car to Brexit, if the seller knows your desperate and have to have a deal at any cost....there's a point when you have to be able to say nah..no deal mate..I'll go
elsewhere.
Anyone that thinks otherwise have obviously never had to do any sort of deal or negotiation in their lives.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Well Boris is the favourite as I understand

The EU only hold the cards if we have no deal on the table

I agree that the EU would go on and on as we are but I'm pretty sure a new PM would not ask for a longer delay

We might have to pay for some pension contributions but the £39bn would not be paid imo

Boris will have no further power than what TM had , nothing will change with a new leader because the Tories don’t have a winning vote in the HoC - and No Deal won’t be imo put back on the table - the MP’s who have the power won’t allow it regardless of what Boris wants

And it imo will be delayed again - the MP’s don’t want to leave and will find a way to revoke leaving and going back to a vote

 

[Hobbit]

Isn’t the ransom part of the withdrawal agreement that our wonderful MP’s won’t vote through?

To be fair, part of that agreement is the EU paying the UK a share of the value of all the assets and projects the UK have contributed towards as well as them paying a % of the pensions of UK MEP's. That aspect of the deal is actually quite fair.... but maybe because the EU will be hurt by having to rejig the budgets, especially as many of the net receivers have said they won't take a drop in what they receive.