Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Foxholer]

Are you sure the Government cannot draft a one line bill to bring in a new law, and get it passed in a day, similar to the Benn Act? Chap on the radio earlier seemed to think it was possible. Think he was from University if Essex School of Law.

edit. This was meant to have @Foxholer post attached but it disappeared!

No idea where that post went!

Anyway, the guy on the radio is correct about the ability to do that! But hadn't thought about the (im)practicality of doing so!

The opposition is currently 'in control' of the agenda in that (call for GE) regard! They almost certainly believe it's in their interest to keep that control at the moment - fpr whatever plan they have.

 

[Mudball]

An excellent article about the 'Framing of the Brexit Debate'. How the Media is shaping the narrative and wiping up the Brexit agenda without proper debate. A good read even if you are a Brexiteer - it makes you think if you have been played by Politicians and the Media and then think who should you believe.

We have been here before as there are few parallels with the Iraq war: the fake deadline to dodge scrutiny, broadcasters repeating government claims uncritically and the implication that anyone who demurs is unpatriotic... (Remember how you felt about Iraq when Blair first took us in - it was a national duty; and how do you feel about it in hindsight when no WMDs were found)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/10/brexit-journalism-failure/600580/

 

[Hobbit]

An excellent article about the 'Framing of the Brexit Debate'. How the Media is shaping the narrative and wiping up the Brexit agenda without proper debate. A good read even if you are a Brexiteer - it makes you think if you have been played by Politicians and the Media and then think who should you believe.

We have been here before as there are few parallels with the Iraq war: the fake deadline to dodge scrutiny, broadcasters repeating government claims uncritically and the implication that anyone who demurs is unpatriotic... (Remember how you felt about Iraq when Blair first took us in - it was a national duty; and how do you feel about it in hindsight when no WMDs were found)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/10/brexit-journalism-failure/600580/

Not the first article in this vein. The article I read highlighted the emotive language like "crash out" and "cliff edge" as putting a negative spin on the debate, sometimes without foundation.

As for the Iraq war; I felt it was an illegal war based on the fact that the US and the UK jumped in without UN approval. If weapons had been found would it have been a justification? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I still think the decision making process was horrendously flawed.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I'm picturing a scenario where the Scots somehow get an Indy Ref 2, win it and then the Government refuses to implement it. And wee Burnie absolutely goes off on one claiming that people should respect the majority vote in a referendum.

Any Indyref2 Act could state that the government would immediately implement the result of the referendum. Such a clause was included in the AV Referendum Act, but, for reasons that are not clear, one was not included in the EU Referendum.

 

[drdel]

Any Indyref2 Act could state that the government would immediately implement the result of the referendum. Such a clause was included in the AV Referendum Act, but, for reasons that are not clear, one was not included in the EU Referendum.

I'd like to think you might be right (if it happened). However the chances the current crowd of MPs would get a majority in the HoC agreeing to commit to anything connected to the EU seems very remote.

 

[Jimaroid]

The opposition is currently 'in control' of the agenda in that (call for GE) regard! They almost certainly believe it's in their interest to keep that control at the moment - fpr whatever plan they have.

As I understand it, yes, the issues the government has in tabling a bill for a general election is that it's an uncertain timeline requiring HoC, HoL and Royal Assent that can get amended on the way E.g., amended to have a second referendum or to revoke A50 or change the voting age or whatever other scheme is dreamt up. So it's doubtful they'll use that option.

The most likely route appears to be another FTPA vote hoping they can get the 2/3's majority. Current numbers look very close on that succeeding but the sands shift hourly.

The remaining options are votes of no confidence, either tabled by Labour or the government against themselves. It seems an unfavourable option whichever way its done, it would mean the formation of an alternative government from opposition parties and a gamble on what occurs in the 14 day time limit for failing to form one, then five weeks before an automatic general election under the FTPA rules. Again, the government doesn't have control over any of that once in motion.

For all the talk of the government playing a clever strategy in four dimensional chess they have failed to see the one dimensional stalemate one move away. They have put control into the hands of the opposition parties. The Emperor is naked.

As I understand it all anyway.

 

[chrisd]

Any Indyref2 Act could state that the government would immediately implement the result of the referendum. Such a clause was included in the AV Referendum Act, but, for reasons that are not clear, one was not included in the EU Referendum.

I guess the reason being, that when the EU referendum was announced that referendum's were very rare and at that the previous one had been enacted as it was democratic and democracy meant something back in the 70's. All the shenanigans since are a pretty new phenomenon and the fact that parliamentarians are now NOT willing to act democratically, but they will get there comeuppance very soon!

 

[Foxholer]

...
The most likely route appears to be another FTPA vote hoping they can get the 2/3's majority. Current numbers look very close on that succeeding but the sands shift hourly.
...

That 2/3rds majority is of 'all eligible members', not simply those that vote! So all Labour, et al, have to do is vote against, or simply abstain, sufficiently and the bill fails!

That's exactly what happened when BoJo tried it in September! He got nowhere near the required 2/3rds!

 

[SocketRocket]

that is pure “project fear” complete speculation based on Tory right wing spin.Only a labour insider will know the answers.

Which bit is 'project fear' Corbyns glasses, his Dalek tones, ruining the ecconomy, increased taxation, negotiating a new Labour deal then voting against it ? Get a grip 🙃

 

[Foxholer]

I think it's only a GE that needs the 2/3 majority. I think a vote of no confidence only needs a simple majority.

Correct!

But Conservatives don't have a majority to guarantee it would pass - having chucked several of their own away by 'removing the Whip' from them! And there could well be a seriously negative consequence to 'calling a vote of no confidence' in your own Government! Labour could/should have a PR field day on variations of that theme - purely technical requirement or not!

 

[patricks148]

another one for the Jo Swinsons fans out there

https://evolvepolitics.com/jo-swins...0P7WTdvuygWH7dGPgy5x7XX56a7jyRSsQSs_uXyYikOmg

 

[robinthehood]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/poli...y-with-instead-of-this-bllocks-20191024190034

 

[harpo_72]

Rather than label it project fear, why not have a read of Labour's manifesto. It clearly states it will increase Income Tax. It clearly states it will increase Corporation Tax. It is rebranding PFI to PCI via a new national bank. It says it will renationalise the railways and the Royal Mail. It will complete HS2, and extend it and the rail networks. It says it will reduce the deficit in 5 years. There's a whole host of 'projects' lined up, all of which will have a cost.

It then comes down to our own intelligence to try and determine how that is affordable. The easiest numbers to work with are those around the deficit. Divide the current deficit by 5 years. To clear that number alone is pure pie in the sky. To clear that number and maintain/increase govt spending is hysterical.

The value of the denationalised industries is easily calculated, i.e. share price times the number of shares issued. How Labour would service their suggested govt bond scheme is questionable but, again, its up to individuals to determine its viability.

Anyway, I digress. That brings me back to the first sentence, "why not have a read of Labour's own manifesto." That isn't project fear, that's their project fact.

It’s project fear because it’s an assumption that it could all be bad for us. It neglects to account for the current restrictions on spending and the deteriorating services that require fixing. Of cause we can opt into lower tax, because it suits us as a person is fine but we will run down the country and there is a possibility of the divides between the wealthy and poor becoming greater.
As long as we all understand that not all things are bad in their manifesto and they are attempting to repair the neglect of the current and previous caretakers. It might not be all palatable but the HoC will determine most of what is acceptable.

 

[drdel]

It’s project fear because it’s an assumption that it could all be bad for us. It neglects to account for the current restrictions on spending and the deteriorating services that require fixing. Of cause we can opt into lower tax, because it suits us as a person is fine but we will run down the country and there is a possibility of the divides between the wealthy and poor becoming greater.
As long as we all understand that not all things are bad in their manifesto and they are attempting to repair the neglect of the current and previous caretakers. It might not be all palatable but the HoC will determine most of what is acceptable.

Based on current GDP and growth forecasts their plans are unaffordable.

 

[harpo_72]

Not the first article in this vein. The article I read highlighted the emotive language like "crash out" and "cliff edge" as putting a negative spin on the debate, sometimes without foundation.

As for the Iraq war; I felt it was an illegal war based on the fact that the US and the UK jumped in without UN approval. If weapons had been found would it have been a justification? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I still think the decision making process was horrendously flawed.

I think the UK was beholden to the US .. some stuff outstanding from history. I would seriously step back on that one and think about the future relationship with the US.

 

[harpo_72]

Based on current GDP and growth forecasts their plans are unaffordable.

The forecasts are pretty hamstrung by the current situation and the speculation on what is coming.
I would expect a good economist to cut the budget to meet the situation.
In my life time I have not witnessed a Tory economic policy of note .. I am not a believer that selling off assets is a great policy. So I won’t vote Tory unless they get someone with a clue

 

[drdel]

The forecasts are pretty hamstrung by the current situation and the speculation on what is coming.
I would expect a good economist to cut the budget to meet the situation.
In my life time I have not witnessed a Tory economic policy of note .. I am not a believer that selling off assets is a great policy. So I won’t vote Tory unless they get someone with a clue

Whatever. IMO, as an economist, the level of growth Labour would need would be higher than anything we've seen in decades - its dreamland stuff.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

another one for the Jo Swinsons fans out there

https://evolvepolitics.com/jo-swins...0P7WTdvuygWH7dGPgy5x7XX56a7jyRSsQSs_uXyYikOmg

I can't believe anyone would seriously quote Evolve Politics as a source.

How that publication has the temerity to present itself as a vehicle for independent coverage of the news beggars belief.

 

[patricks148]

I can't believe anyone would seriously quote Evolve Politics as a source.

How that publication has the temerity to present itself as a vehicle for independent coverage of the news beggars belief.

its not true then?

 

[Mudball]

another one for the Jo Swinsons fans out there

https://evolvepolitics.com/jo-swins...0P7WTdvuygWH7dGPgy5x7XX56a7jyRSsQSs_uXyYikOmg

i think Lib Dems are the only choice of those who want to stay.. if they voted the same way as the refererdum, then they get about 49% of votes + any swing votes + any young votes (who are apparently pro-eu). That might make her a substantially a very strong position. How this translates to seats in the FPTP system remains to be seen. The Anti-EU brigade is split bit Tory, Brexit Party. Labour remains a floater