Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Innovindil]

45 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

So, Supreme Court are ruling this morning, will Theresa be allowed to trigger article 50 or will it be a Parliamentary decision to give the go-ahead?

 

I'm genuinely unsure which way this will go.....

They'll go for the safe option and allow MP's to vote on it I'd expect. Anything else and it just goes to the eu court and we know how that will go. 

 

No idea why May even decided to fight it tbh, there were better ways to get the MP's to sign off on it. It's suicide for the majority to vote against it. And you can give them a yes/no vote on the final deal as it will be between "the deal" and wto rules, only one way that goes too. 

[Nick]

Just now, Innovindil said:

They'll go for the safe option and allow MP's to vote on it I'd expect. Anything else and it just goes to the eu court and we know how that will go. 

 

No idea why May even decided to fight it tbh, there were better ways to get the MP's to sign off on it. It's suicide for the majority to vote against it. And you can give them a yes/no vote on the final deal as it will be between "the deal" and wto rules, only one way that goes too. 

I'm not sure.

 

If MP's did vote on it - what do we think the outcome would be?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

54 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

So, Supreme Court are ruling this morning, will Theresa be allowed to trigger article 50 or will it be a Parliamentary decision to give the go-ahead?

 

I'm genuinely unsure which way this will go.....

 

Apparently Rod Stewart is involved with presenting the result? 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

I will say this... Having heard some of the completely irrelevant points made on Victoria Derbyshire by both MP's and onlookers for both sides this morning, it makes me concerned about democracy. 

 

A lot lot of what was said was regurgitated popular slogans, there was little considered opinion - but when someone tried to do just that, because it's bitsize politics, they're rushed for their point, get quickly counter claimed and any critical thinking is then lost.

 

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not sure.

 

If MP's did vote on it - what do we think the outcome would be?

Vote on triggering article 50? 

 

A resounding yes, with some slight whimpering from the SNP, lib Dems, portions of labour. A no vote for many will mean the axe at general election. 

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not sure.

 

If MP's did vote on it - what do we think the outcome would be?

 

Massive vote in favour of triggering Article 50, I assume. Labour have said they won't obstruct it and the vast majority of Tories will support it.

 

The Lib Dems, SNP & SDLP will presumably vote against, plus a handful of Labour rebels and Ken Clarke, so could be about 500-100 in favour of Article 50.

I suppose Labour might opt to abstain rather than support if the Govt takes a hard line, refusing to protect employment rights or to seek extensive access to the single market....but the Govt probably won't do that. After all, it's all still just words at this stage - what they are able or wiling to negotiate will be a different matter.

 

I've just seen that the judges have voted 8-3 that it has to go to Parliament.

That's good mainly for future precedent - that the powers of indirectly-elected/appointed Government aren't extended to the detriment of directly-elected Parliament.

It will also probably allow for a better debate as the Govt will presumably have to produce a bill/motion with a half-decent wording.... Article 50 WILL be triggered, though, I'm sure.

 

Then it's a matter of what the situation is in 18 months when Parliament votes on the negotiated deal: will it be a good deal? what will the economy be like by then? will the public mood have changed? will there be a legal option for the Govt to withdraw from the Article 50 process in the unlikely event that the mood has changed drastically?

[Innovindil]

Just out of curiosity, if this was a case of law how can these elite judges come to different views? How can 8 be for and 3 against? I don't understand how their own personal opinions couldn't affect it tbh. 

[ousefox]

Pretty obvious that would be the result. The only thing I thought may have a slight chance was needing the consent of the devolved nations, especially Scotland where the Sewel convention is statute based, but that's been rejected by the SC.

[ousefox]

Just now, Innovindil said:

Just out of curiosity, if this was a case of law how can these elite judges come to different views? How can 8 be for and 3 against? I don't understand how their own personal opinions couldn't affect it tbh. 

It was a question of interpreting the law. The other 3 judges obviously did that in a different way. There are dissenting judges in many cases.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Not exactly surprising is it. 

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Watson said:

It was a question of interpreting the law. The other 3 judges obviously did that in a different way. There are dissenting judges in many cases.

Very strange. Wasn't aware of that cheers

 

"But the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say."

 

Looks like we'll be having another "indyref2 is definitely getting closer!" rant by dear old Nicola later

[Guest MattP]

As expected, ruled against government. 

 

Total waste of time given parliament is always going to vote it through, what a waste of money just filling the pockets lawyers again.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Just out of curiosity, if this was a case of law how can these elite judges come to different views? How can 8 be for and 3 against? I don't understand how their own personal opinions couldn't affect it tbh. 

It's impossible to imagine anyone could look at this completely neutral given the passion and polarisation the debate on the EU referendum created.

 

Maybe I'm being harsh on the government as well given it was a unanimous vote, they obviously did have some sort of case.

 

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not sure.

 

If MP's did vote on it - what do we think the outcome would be?

Huge article 50 vote, even the hardcore Tory remainers like Soubry have now said they'll vote in favour, which leaves just Ken Clarke on his own going against it. Probably about 40-50 Labour rebels who live in the liberal hugely pro remain seats in London will go against it, SNP and Lib Dems will vote against, 500-100 from Alf looks about spot on.

 

It's more a problem for Corbyn really this, yet again it will show the huge division in his party over an issue they have often tried to play both sides of the fence on to please their voters.

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's impossible to imagine anyone could look at this completely neutral given the passion and polarisation the debate on the EU referendum created.

 

Maybe I'm being harsh on the government as well given it was a unanimous vote, they obviously did have some sort of case.

 

Huge article 50 vote, even the hardcore Tory remainers like Soubry have now said they'll vote in favour, which leaves just Ken Clarke on his own going against it. Probably about 40-50 Labour rebels who live in the liberal hugely pro remain seats in London will go against it, SNP and Lib Dems will vote against, 500-100 from Alf looks about spot on.

 

It's more a problem for Corbyn really this, yet again it will show the huge division in his party over an issue they have often tried to play both sides of the fence on to please their voters.

That's the trouble corbyn is in isn't it? He tells all his mp's "respect the vote of the people" but that means having some of his mp's that are in remain areas vote against their constituents. They won't forget that come election time, and it's not like labour have the seats to spare to just throw away. Better for the lot of them to abstain and be done with the division. 

 

This nonsensical sidestepping and being the opposition in the wrong areas will cost them dearly. 

[ousefox]

The government certainly did have a decent argument. Having studied it in some depth, I found it hard to decide myself but probably agree with the SC. This judgment is a powerful reassertion of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty no matter what. 

 

It was pretty obvious what the result would be after the divisional court decision imo - I'm sure the SC judges will have had words with the Div court before that decision was even made.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

That's the trouble corbyn is in isn't it? He tells all his mp's "respect the vote of the people" but that means having some of his mp's that are in remain areas vote against their constituents. They won't forget that come election time, and it's not like labour have the seats to spare to just throw away. Better for the lot of them to abstain and be done with the division. 

 

This nonsensical sidestepping and being the opposition in the wrong areas will cost them dearly. 

Most of them will be fine, largely pro-remain areas anyway who probably want their own MP to vote against it. It's wrong after voting to do it but I can sort of understand it if you are in a heavy remain seat. (I have no problem with Clarke's position given he didn't vote to have the referendum in the first place)

From a quick glance there are four who are expected to vote against it despite being in "leave constituencies" - Chris Bryant of the Rhondda, Owen Smith of Pontypridd, Geraint Davies fof Swansea West and Tom Brake for the Lib Dems of Carshalton and Wallington.

it's a pretty big thing to vote to turn a decision over to your constituents, then decide after they have voted you are going to annul it because you don't agree with it, I just hope the voters give them what they deserve next time, I'd rather vote for the Green party than a Kipper or Tory who had such distain for my vote than the four mentioned above.

[Guest MattP]

Just a quick addition as well, this is great for the Brexit campaign and that's from me who thinks the right decision has been made.

 

The remainers have gained no real advantage at all here, as has been explained parliament will pass it comfortably, to the wider public though, the image of the 'elites' trying to stop Brexit has been strongly re-inforced through this court case.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

It's more a problem for Corbyn really this, yet again it will show the huge division in his party over an issue they have often tried to play both sides of the fence on to please their voters.

 

I wonder if there will be so many Labour rebels? All MPs will be able to press May to try to negotiate extensive access to the Single Market and to protect employment & environmental rights. They'll presumably be able to present (fairly meaningless) motions or amendments to that effect. If May has any sense she'll agree to most of that, while making clear that immigration control is a red line. Being cynical, it's only words at this stage as everything will have to be negotiated, so she has little to lose.

 

As the referendum gave a clear mandate for Article 50 and as there has been no significant change in public mood, Labour MPs would be crazy to seek to block Article 50. That would only appeal to a tiny minority of the public, surely? Instead, they could keep their powder dry for 18 months. In 18 months, IF any deal negotiated looks a bad deal from their perspective (little single market access, few guarantees on employment rights etc.) and IF the economy is struggling and the pro-Brexit public mood has changed, then that would be a much better moment to take on the Government - to call on it to rescind Article 50 if that is possible (still no clarification on that?), probably triggering a general election, or to seek a parliamentary vote instructing the Govt to renegotiate so as to give a higher priority to the Single Market, employment rights or whatever.

 

Tactically, this also seems the wrong time for pro-Remain Labour MPs to be rebelling against Corbyn, so soon after his re-election - in a vote they surely cannot win. Though, if the vote takes place after the 2 by-elections and Labour has done badly in Copeland and Stoke, that argument might not hold - it could become a good moment to bring Corbyn down.

 

Labour could abstain en masse, but would look like ineffectual ditherers and would be slated for not supporting the people's will as expressed in the referendum. A situation where May publicly agrees to negotiate for good Single Market access and Labour then supports the triggering of Article 50 could be in the interests of both main parties. They'd all then have to see how the negotiations, the economy and the public mood developed over the next 18 months. She's already committed to putting EU employment protection into UK law post-Brexit, hasn't she?

[ousefox]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Just a quick addition as well, this is great for the Brexit campaign and that's from me who thinks the right decision has been made.

 

The remainers have gained no real advantage at all here, as has been explained parliament will pass it comfortably, to the wider public though, the image of the 'elites' trying to stop Brexit has been strongly re-inforced through this court case.

Wrongly by some of our garbage press and the uninformed, but you are right.

 

Any idea of the support not to trigger art 50 in the Lords? That's the only stumbling block now and would cause havoc!

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Total waste of time given parliament is always going to vote it through, what a waste of money just filling the pockets lawyers again.

 

Completely disagree with this. It's not a total waste of time. It's a valuable reassertion of the primacy of (directly-elected) parliament over (indirectly-elected/appointed) government.

 

This establishes important case law. If the Govt had won, future governments could then have cited this case to justify removing other rights from the public without having to consult parliament.

 

I know it requires a lot of imagination, but imagine a future Corbyn Government elected on a promise to immediately allow free immigration, get rid of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and nationalise Leicester City FC.

If the Govt had won this case, PM Corbyn could have cited this case law to justify the government's right, given its electoral mandate, to introduce those policies without consulting parliament. Not sure that they'd get away with it, but you see the point? 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wonder if there will be so many Labour rebels? All MPs will be able to press May to try to negotiate extensive access to the Single Market and to protect employment & environmental rights. They'll presumably be able to present (fairly meaningless) motions or amendments to that effect. If May has any sense she'll agree to most of that, while making clear that immigration control is a red line. Being cynical, it's only words at this stage as everything will have to be negotiated, so she has little to lose.

 

As the referendum gave a clear mandate for Article 50 and as there has been no significant change in public mood, Labour MPs would be crazy to seek to block Article 50. That would only appeal to a tiny minority of the public, surely? Instead, they could keep their powder dry for 18 months. In 18 months, IF any deal negotiated looks a bad deal from their perspective (little single market access, few guarantees on employment rights etc.) and IF the economy is struggling and the pro-Brexit public mood has changed, then that would be a much better moment to take on the Government - to call on it to rescind Article 50 if that is possible (still no clarification on that?), probably triggering a general election, or to seek a parliamentary vote instructing the Govt to renegotiate so as to give a higher priority to the Single Market, employment rights or whatever.

 

Tactically, this also seems the wrong time for pro-Remain Labour MPs to be rebelling against Corbyn, so soon after his re-election - in a vote they surely cannot win. Though, if the vote takes place after the 2 by-elections and Labour has done badly in Copeland and Stoke, that argument might not hold - it could become a good moment to bring Corbyn down.

 

Labour could abstain en masse, but would look like ineffectual ditherers and would be slated for not supporting the people's will as expressed in the referendum. A situation where May publicly agrees to negotiate for good Single Market access and Labour then supports the triggering of Article 50 could be in the interests of both main parties. They'd all then have to see how the negotiations, the economy and the public mood developed over the next 18 months. She's already committed to putting EU employment protection into UK law post-Brexit, hasn't she?

I e-mailed my MP last week on the rescind article 50 point, I will let you know when I get a response as it's pretty important and I still can't believe no one has mentioned it!

 

As far I as understand everything as it stands the vote in 18 months will be to either accept the deal or just walk away, The Times on Saturday stated if May chooses to walk away from the negotiations then the vote wouldn't even go to parliament and the EU ratifying a "no deal" in a vote would be enough to see us removed from the European Union hence the "no deal is better than a bad real" slogan she is giving. But again, we need some clarity on this.

 

Last part - she has, will be in the great repeal act.

 

Labour just need to vote to invoke it and get on with it, let the minority of rebels do their thing and try to ignore it, all this is going to end up doing if they aren't careful is underlining that it's them, not the Tories, who are being torn apart on Europe.

 

3 minutes ago, Watson said:

Wrongly by some of our garbage press and the uninformed, but you are right.

 

Any idea of the support not to trigger art 50 in the Lords? That's the only stumbling block now and would cause havoc!

They have said they won't, but if they do block it then Theresa May has to create another 800 peers, farcical, but the only alternative.

 

Then the next bill after it's passed through should be to abolish the House of Lords.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Ok, I'm not sure many on here understand what is being looked at here, so I shall try and summarise to the best of my knowledge;

 

1.) May and the Government wanted the power to trigger article 50 themselves as opposed to putting this through Parliament

 

2.) One of the advantages to May and the Government of this approach is that they wouldn't have had to present many formal plans in public - they could make broad statements of aims meaning they'd face less clear scrutiny of the final outcome come the end and whether it's a good or bad deal - key given we'll be close to an election in 2 years from March.

 

3.) The other worry May and the Government have is they have a slim majority and a divided party on the issue themselves, so although the Article 50 wording of the bill should sail through Parliament largely unchallenged, what other MP's can do is tack on amendments to the same bill that quanitfy some further conditions on the governments powers in triggering Article 50.  

 

4.) Thus the Conservatives don't like this ruling, because they could be pinned to an amendment that forces their hand in an area they didn't want - naturally governments like certainly in they can do what they want to do.

 

5.) BUT, I suspect Labour aren't massively enamoured by the legal decision, because their hard choice is not really the  overall Article 50 bill (only a handful of those would vote against), but what amendments they might support. 

 

6.) My supicision on the reason why the Government decided to appeal the original high court decision was not in the thinking they could get the ruling overturned... what looks far more key now is the time they've had (some 82 days) to consider the original judgement and change course appropriately.

 

They also got to dump some bad news yesterday... seems pretty obvious the failed Tridant Test was leaked by the Tories because they knew the story would be forgotten today!

 

7.) This includes a minimal initial bill which is due to be announced at 12:30. It's suggested that the Government is trying to do this to make placing amendments difficult. 

 

8.) So the game is afoot proper now.

 

Brexit retain a lead overall at the moment, but Remain could still have a say in how or what happens.

 

There is a suspicion that Article 50 could be reversed (a legal position not offered today, but if there was will on both sides I imagine reversal would be an option) so it has to be accepted no position is certain - people's minds change after all. 

 

On on the Brexit side, they need pace to the process... It needs to be pretty much a done deal inside 2 years otherwise there's a danger of economic effects taking effect (which may not be connected to the EU) that stems the popular enthusiasm they have behind them and gives a chance of a change of government at the next election. 

 

On on the Remain side, delaying is probably the name of the game... the harder Brexit becomes (both in terms and to achieve) the more scope/support they could receive. 

 

 

So in summary, regardless of what side of the argument you sit on, you can see there are a lot of political games being played out between the main two parties... which is also why it would be foolish to completely rule out a second referendum within 5 years from now.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I e-mailed my MP last week on the rescind article 50 point, I will let you know when I get a response as it's pretty important and I still can't believe no one has mentioned it!

 

As far I as understand everything as it stands the vote in 18 months will be to either accept the deal or just walk away, The Times on Saturday stated if May chooses to walk away from the negotiations then the vote wouldn't even go to parliament and the EU ratifying a "no deal" in a vote would be enough to see us removed from the European Union hence the "no deal is better than a bad real" slogan she is giving. But again, we need some clarity on this.

 

 

Yes, please do let us know if/when your MP responds to that question.

 

I'll email my MP (Jon Ashworth), too - a shrewd bloke, but I've a nasty feeling he'll sit on the fence and be non-committal. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, please do let us know if/when your MP responds to that question.

 

I'll email my MP (Jon Ashworth), too - a shrewd bloke, but I've a nasty feeling he'll sit on the fence and be non-committal. 

 

Interesting, John Whittingdale has just suggested it's irrevocable on the Daily Politics... it's certainly a court case that will be brought forward at some point!

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Interesting, John Whittingdale has just suggested it's irrevocable on the Daily Politics... it's certainly a court case that will be brought forward at some point!

Can't wait.

 

The only good thing about these cases is I hold no longer fear of a second referendum anymore, I think leave would win it 55-45% at minimum.