The Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson Supports Brexit Cancellation and will write that into its election manifesto.
“Whenever the election comes, our position is clear and unequivocal. A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would cancel it by revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union,” said Swinson.
“The Liberal Democrats are the number one choice for people at the next general election who are opposed to Brexit. Our position is clear and unambiguous. A majority Liberal Democrat government would not renegotiate Brexit, we would stop Brexit,” said former shadow frontbencher Chuka Umunna joined the party in June.
I disagree with Swinson but her position is at least clear.
I also suggest that staying in the EU is a better course of action than a Customs Union, May’s deal, or Labour’s incoherent and ever-changing position.
This is not a change in stance by me. A Customs Union trap is the worst of all possibilities.
Swinson Blasts Labour’s Renegotiation Stance
Sources in the Lib Dems said it was time for the party to set itself apart from Labour’s “renegotiation” position on Brexit and make itself an unequivocal remain option for voters.
The move effectively closes down pre-emptive conversations around an electoral pact with Labour. Swinson angered many within Labour just a month into her new role when she criticised Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion that he should become a caretaker prime minister to stop a no-deal Brexit.
Instead she said someone like Ken Clarke, who lost the Tory whip last week after he voted against the government, or the former deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman, would be better suited to the role. The shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, described her dismissal of Corbyn as “extremely petulant”.
Liberal Democrats vs Labour Rift Widens
This announcement is the most important Brexit news of the day.
Swinson and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn already did not get along. This announcement widens the rift. She would like to get rid of that thorn in her side.
Unless Labour changes its stance, this announcement seemingly rules out a Labour-Lib Dem election alliance.
I say seemingly because positions are subject to change.
Corbyn, Swinson in a Box
If Corbyn insists on being the temp caretaker leader (as he has demanded many times), and Swinson refuses, Johnson can run out the clock (assuming Johnson has a creative way around Benn).
I suspect someone will give, but these politicians are all egomaniacs, so who the heck really knows?
Creative Way Around Benn
I am positive Johnson has a way around Benn. A legal challenge of some sort is coming or the law is flawed somehow. I suspect the former.
Let’s take up that line of thought from the Guardian Live Blog.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab Statement
This government will always respect the rule of law. That’s been our clear position consistently, and frankly it is outrageous that it is even in doubt. Of course, how the rule of law will be respected is normally straightforward. But sometimes it can be more complex because there are conflicting laws or competing legal advice. The government usually gets its interpretation right, but there have been many judicial reviews over the years by many governments of different complexions. When on occasion the government has lost a case … then of course it must correct its position accordingly and expeditiously.
Respect the Rule of Law
Challenging the law and ignoring it are two different things.
One can “respect” the law yet challenge it in court of law. This is the path Johnson seems to have taken.
Raab then correctly added:
“Respecting the referendum must also mean that this house allows us to leave without a deal if Brussels leave no other credible choice. Taking that option off the table severely weakened our negotiating position.”
Johnson Backdown?
The Financial Times reports Johnson Softens his Brexit Stance on Irish Border.
Here’s Johnson’s statement: “The landing zone is clear to everyone. We need to find a way to ensure the UK is not kept locked in the backstop arrangement and there is a way out for the UK while giving Ireland the assurances it needs.”
Is that a change in stance?
I don’t know. A Johnson spokesman commented Johnson does not mean what he appears to be saying and that a time limit is insufficient to solve the
The FT noted DUP would not go for a Northern-Ireland Backtop and Johnson will not go for an all-UK Backstop.
So, if Johnson does not mean what he says, what’s changed?
Bear in mind that Johnson has to make it look like he is pursuing a deal, whether he really is or not.
Appearances
Appearances may be far from reality, and likely are.
Johnson needs to appear as if he is doing something.
The solution is to appear as if he is doing something.
Johnson Throws Down the Gaunlet
“If you really want to delay Brexit beyond October the 31st, which is what you seem to want to do, then vote for an election and let the people decide if they want a delay or not. And if you refuse to do that tonight, I will go to Brussels and negotiate our departure, hopefully with a deal, but without one if necessary. I will not ask for another delay,” said Johnson.
There’s no change in that stance.
The apparent legal contradiction in regards to the Rule of Law remains as discussed in detail above.
Six Key Implications
Far more happened in the Liberal Democrat announcement than in all the rest of today’s Brexit news combined.
- The rift between Labour and the Liberal Democrats widened.
- That rift might kill a No Confidence motion. It might also delay a No Confidence motion long enough that it won’t work.
- An election alliance between Johnson and the Brexit Party seems likely.
- An election alliance between Labour and the Liberal Democrats seems unlikely.
- If Johnson wins the election, No Deal will result thanks to the Tory purge even though I can construct a way in which the purge could partially be undone.
- If Johnson loses, I expect Labour and the Liberal Democrats will come to some sort of agreement. Otherwise there will be endless bickering and a hung Parliament.
Labour’s Ridiculous Position
Compare the Liberal Democrat official position with Labour’s Ridiculous Position: Seek a Deal With the EU, then Campaign Against It
The rift increases the odds of No Deal.
As a supporter of “No Deal”, I am encouraged by this turn of events.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Liberal Democrats Officially Back Revoking Article 50, Rule Out Labour Alliance
All 17 of them? I must have missed something here, I went to the House of Commons web page this morning to look at the make up of the DUP, while I was there looking at the MPs by party I noticed that the Lib Dems were just 17 MPs. So, why do they even matter? There are 10 DUP MPs, so for that matter why does their participation in a coalition/alliance matter?
Come on Brits, face reality, the EU wants you to become full fledged Europeans(whatever that may be) again, in order to serve the personal agendas of the Junckers, the corrupt Verhofstadts and Tusks of this european circus and their corporate cronies…..they really WILL have you back, with a vengance…..anoint and bend over the EU ‘loves’ you !
D E M O C R A C Y
Polls have shown that only about 1/3 of the people favor a no-Deal Brexit, and the same holds true for MPs (“the sovereign”). A majority voted remain in N Ireland and Scotland. Polling shows support for Remain and Brexit have hovered slightly north of 40% for years. There is strong support for a deal, but of course, it depends on what kind of a deal.
All the moaning about lack of democracy, clear will of the people, etc., completely ignores that the support for a no-Deal Brexist is weak.
The EU is sick and tired of the whole spectacle. Why? Because the UK is incapable of coming up with proposals to discuss. And why is that? Because the people of the UK are deeply divided, and the whole Brexit chapter will only serve to polarize the UK further.
the EU will never be ‘sick and tired’ of anything because the EU is a amorph entity composed of worthless sidelined national politicians, the latter ONLY worried about their overpaid, taxfree cushy job, golden handshakes and royal pensions for the rest of their worthless parasitic lives….
There’s zero chance of Corbyn standing down this side of winning his great election victory or getting absolutely pasted at the polls. If the EU election failure wasn’t motive enough, he’s not going to fold while he’s got imagined smell of picket line brasiers from a return to the 70s in his nostrils.
Even if persuaded to go away because of “a bit of a health problem” (to make it not so much a case of facing reality as making way for the greater good), the Momentum and union nominee would be McDonald. He’s even more un-electable than Corbyn. The sight of labour MPs singing the red flag in parliament last night will be played over and over and over again as soon as the campaign starts for real.
As for any sort of electoral pact between Lib Dems and Labour, there’s more chance of Boris standing for US president and winning (he is American by birth, by the way). The LDs got electorally mauled for holding hands with the Tories in 2010 and the only reason they’ve picked up any votes this year is because there’s nowhere else for the remoaners to go. Fool me once, etc.
Avid’s behind, as always. Labour is already promising a referendum and will be campaigning to remain, they’ve declared so multiple times. The only recent update is that multiple shadow ministers have now indicated they will even campaign AGAINST a deal that they themselves will have negotiated. It’s beyond comical.
Donald Tusk said there must be a special place in Hell for the Brexiteers who sold it to the country. I disagree, but there must be a special place there for the union boys who finageld the wrong Milliband brother to the head of the party, starting off the whole slippery slope including a Cameron victory, an EU referendum and the now final Labour descent into oblivion.
Will he or won’t he…?
The hot topic now (lately missed) is will Boris Johnson sign the letter asking for a postponement?
Inquiring minds want to know….
I am sure Jo Swinson must be aspiring a cushy overpaid job within the fold of the parasitic EU circus…..She will get it, and the EU will have you back Brits….with a vengeance this time …. Cancel Brexit Brits, anoint and bend over Brits, the EU ‘loves’ you !
I have to say that Jo Swinson’s mumsy-wumsy, know-better-than-you smugness may go down well with the girls; but for the guys it’s bilgeworthy.
I’m sure it’s completely toxic to “working class” males (aka morons).
Once again, you are conflating two things, the referendum and the law. The referendum outlined a desire to quit the EU. The question was short and specific but did not provide details on the conditions of leaving. A law will be longer and provide specifics (“It shall be illegal to trim hedgehogs left front toenails shorter than 4 mm during the period beginning at 11:37 am on the 5th of June….”).
If Boris wants to challenge the new law, he will be unlikely to be able to using the referendum as a basis. Any legal challenge using the referendum will open up the case to not simply the question and answer but to the entire Brexit campaign, the implied or explicit promises made and the intent of the voters. It is likely that a legal challenge to this law would fail in an English court if that is the basis of the challenge.
Mish, I am curious to know why you support a Hard Brexit?
I don’t speak for Mish, but I’ve always thought — given the events of the 1770s — that it’d be kinda hypocritical for us Americans to object whenever a people wishes to sever ties with a sovereign. 😉
Needing to meet conditions so as to leave makes you a prisoner.
I support a Hard Brexit because it is the only way out. It is impossible to deal with the EU whilst you have a majority of remainer MPs who will do anything that they can to keep you in.
It should have been up to the MPs to decide if they wanted to leave with or without a deal. Extending our membership should never have been on the menu.
“Once again, you are conflating two things, the referendum and the law.”
No Expat, the parliament passed European Union Referendum Act 2015 and that made IT binding law, all else is subservient to that referendum result. They did not pass a law that said the population can vote on invocation of Article 50 or remaining in the EU and if we like the results we will honor their vote Act!
In the end that act of parliament has to be upheld, the vote happened and the people spoke, leave the EU, not in 20 or 30 years when every last opposition MP agrees with all the terms.
Test.
As you say.
Dominic Raab is so right about competing/conflicting laws. What about EU law? EU law takes primacy over that of member states.The ECJ is the highest court in the UK. This principle is enshrined in International Treaty. Article 50 gives member states only two powers, one to revoke and another to negotiate a deal, it doesn’t give the UK any power to extend (and pretend).
The European Court of Justice tested the “constitutional waters” the last time we were at this sorry impasse. Now here we are again no further forward, and with Article 50 still “locked and loaded”. If the UK government (and that is not Parliament) doesn’t agree a deal at the Council of Ministers on the 17th/18th October, the “Benn Bill”- which is shockingly bad law under the UK Constitution and will eventually be stripped from the Statute books – has no further purpose.
The ECJ may wish to give it’s “final” ruling on the matter.
The EU lacks any authority what so ever. They made the rule you talk about themselves.
Just because your little tree fort has a bunch of rules doesn’t mean anyone else cares what those rules are
The sad thing is we signed up to the rules and have done quite a good job of sticking to them. If we don’t like what we have got and cannot get redress we can always leave. Then why don’t we?
This is just the political class refusing to accept that folks outside of politics are not happy with more of the same. Its happening all over the G7. But those same political groups are 110% reliant on issuing more more more debt in OUR name to keep THEIR party going.
The political class doesn’t see the problem, they don’t want to see the problem, so it is no surprise they think remain is a viable outcome (in the medium term, 3-5 years out, it is not viable).
I don’t know if Marie Antoinette really said “let them eat cake” or not, but the level of total disconnect exhibited by the quote rings true (then and now).
This seems amazingly stupid if true.
I rather doubt it
I suspect that this is part of the walk back from Labour’s current position. The referendum would be Remain v May’s deal.
Excuse me but what is the referendum for then?
Straw Man?
Only 3% want may Deal
Truly nuts – I am sure we agree on this
The referendum is to overturn the 2016 referendum and revoke art.50. I would be happy with that. The liar’s own government in the ” Yellowhammer ” report predict all sorts of problems for the UK which were poo-pooed by Farage Gove and the rest who predicted sunlit uplands during the 2016 referendum. The leavers will render this county powerless in a world where big nations and trading blocks will dominate. We cannot allow this to happen.
Just asking Mish, the deal May made was flawed but maybe it is the best deal possible that would get them out once and for all. They can seek to change it later. I mean, I for one expect the EU to collapse post Brexit, if the EU ends then there is no more treaty and the UK will owe nothing to the EU. This might strike you as an expedient that defies the will of the referendum, but, what if it is the only way to go forward without breaking up the UK? Another debatable prospect.
avid,
please answer this question because I would really like to understand your position on this.
To me, the principle of the referendum being honoured must be paramount. If the vote is not honoured, then everyone will know that voting doesnt count and it is just raw power that decides things. That means to change anything you are constantly in a state of war and repression, there can be no other way.
You must know this. And yet you favour the UK being repressed as part of the UK rather than being a representative democracy, where people’s vote decide matters.
What is so great about the EU that it is better to be repressed and part of it rather than to exist outside of it?
This is going to be a long screed. I believe the Brexit prospectus was wholly untrue for the following reasons:
Sovereignty, it is true that in 1973 Britain pooled sovereignty with the rest of the then EEC in order to increase its power. It is not true that people in 1975 did not know what they were voting for. Read the preamble to the treaty of Rome and it states quite clearly that
the object of the EEC was both political and economic. During the 1975 referendum Enoch Powell, Tony Benn and Peter Shore railed against the EEC on precisely the sovereignty argument. Heath and Jenkins argued for the ever closer union. Indeed in answer to Macmillan’s first attempt to join the EEC Hugh Gaitskell, the the leader of the Labour party accused Macmillan of attempting to destroy British sovereignty and throw away 1000 years of British history. The idea that the British people were ignorant of the true intentions behind the EEC is balderdash. In 1983 Michael Foot went to the country arguing that the UK should reclaim its sovereignty and leave the EEC. Mrs Thatcher won that election arguing the opposite.
The EU has taken away the UK’s ability to rule itself and is subject to a huge unelected European civil service and that that is not democratic. First off I would say physician heal thyself because over half of our legislators are appointed not elected. There are fewer EU officials in the whole of the commission than in the UK Scottish Office. Now you might say why does Westminster need so many civil servants when Scotland has its own First Minister or the Europeans might say thank you for pointing out the speck in our eye, what about the plank in yours? British ministers voted with the majority in the council of Ministers over 2500 times and were in the minority on only 59 occasions. This means that the democratically elected UK government agreed with the vast majority of EU decisions. To even suggest that we have been oppressed by an undemocratic EU is beyond ludicrous.
Britain has lost independent power as a result of its EU membership and leaving the EU will increase our power: For eight hundred years England and then the UK has had a policy to keep Ireland within our sphere of influence: within one stroke you leavers delivered Ireland into the EU sphere of influence. Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, Napoleon, Kaiser Bill and Hitler are laughing in their graves at you. If ever there was an example of pooled sovereignty working at its best it was last week when Johnson was lectured by Varadkher about what was what in a no deal scenario. The Irish have overplayed their hand various Brexiteers have claimed in recent weeks. For god’s sake this is the first time ever that the Irish have had a hand to play and it is because they are members of the EU. Doesn’t that give you pause for thought? Leaving the EU significantly reduces UK power in our own sphere of influence and the world. What happens when Spain gets uppity abot Gibraltar or Cyprus plays up about our sovereign bases in Akrotiri? It will not be pretty.
There will be a wonderful economic opportunity for the UK once we leave: I advise you to Google the following- Minford, House of Lords Brexit Committee Demise of UK manufacturing and farming. Professor Minford was one of Thatcher’s advisors and largely responsible for the mayhem Thatcher wrought in the North, Wales and Scotland when she destroyed whole swathes of British industry. In his evidence Minford blithely accepts that post Brexit British industry and farming will be destroyed, indeed he welcomes it. Now why anyone would give this pernicious man a second bite at the cherry is beyond me but why anyone would follow the leading Brexiteers, who all agree with Minford is astounding. By the way what would you give Argentina and Russia to make them withdraw their objections to our WTO schedules? Don’t forget we will not be able to trade on WTO terms until every member of the WTO agrees our schedules. And finally the biggest Brexit lie. Farage and co want to diverge from the EU. Yet they say they want an FTA. To wish to diverge is the antithesis of an FTA. If that isn’t stupid the the moon is made of green cheese.
In the light of the above, pooling sovereignty makes the UK more powerful. leaving weakens us, we are not repressed by the EU and given that over half of our legislators are appointed we are hardly a beacon of democracy and we lose so much by leaving the best FTA/Common market on the planet. The EU is as protectionist as America, India, China, South Korea and Japan. The only problem is that if we leave they will be protecting themselves from us.
The Brexit prospectus was sold on a series of lies and I believe the project is inimical to all our futures and should be fought against with all our might.
1. They did not know what they were voting for, that is why the older generation who voted IN then are voting OUT now. Leaving aside the elections which were not single ticket affairs, you sort of failed to mention that hidden legal advice was that accession was a breach of UK law, or that after Norway voted in referendum not to join the UK ditched its referendum and accedded without, the referendum being witheld as a post-truth event in an economic upswing. I could go on, and deeper into the planning and evidence of a foregone conclusion, but won’t waste your time.
This is bureaucracy at work, it hides behind the other, but it is no surprise hence that government and civil service are packed by remainers. They are also quite aware that without EU they will be directly accountable under a different and absolute authority. You actually don’t seem to realise how this bureaucratic apparatus has also panned out in other European countries, with regionalisation, duplicate services and ECB financed national decentralisation with EU as authority. It is oppressive and chaotic compared with previous national order.
Home rule and independence took place a long time ago, well before EC, what are you on? For the rest and good friday, unless you are Irish or live in northern Ireland , well you know the opinion you are advertising is irresponsible and inflammatory, in fact it is pretentious and manipulative, and designed to antagonise. I can tell you one thing though, EU is not to the satisfaction of many Irish, nor should Irish sovereignty be considered an extension of EU.
Gib. voted remain and this was an orchestrated diplomatic approach, even including hardline nationalist movements. You cannot say they did not try nor question their intentions, BUT EU is also considered manipulative , biased and intrusive. The Spanish are unrealistic with regard to their approach, but sure they can play games at the border or for votes etc., in fact I would be more concerned what happens with Spain than Gib. , all else remaining neutral.
Akrotiri, Rota etc. are a different game, don’t confuse yourself there.
Brexit has or had no reason to not be a friendly distancing and return of national sovereignty and direction on various fronts. That was not what has been chosen apparently, the evolution of the last few years will leave people questioning indefinitely (and depending on what does actually come to be).
“A seat at your table to help you run our country because otherwise we will be powerless.”
really doesn’t cut it, let’s just blame it on negative rates and allow The Ministry for the Protection of European Way of Life to work its charm on those who prefer to stay , no one is forcing you personally to leave EU after all, sure you will be quite welcome somewhere…over you go.
(I would normally actually feel some sympathy for such earnest or innocent support of the European project, but all I have witnessed are the traditional ideals being replaced with “progress” and then wasted on useless endeavours as a whole continent sinks, trampled by corrupt bureaucracy that has no idea what it is doing beyond putting on a display to get paid and secure own authority. So no, my view is very simply “goodbye”. I won’t give more time to contesting you like this because it is as pointless as remaining in EU, but you can be sure that I hold similar or other arguments for anything at all you might say that supports the idea of UK staying under EU law or authority)
The above reply was written point by point one to four , in edit it appears as typed, but on display this site has edited the number points to different ones (!) and changed the layout.
First of all I’m Irish. But I believe in realpolitik, the transfer of Ireland from the British to the EU sphere of interest is the first of many foreign policy disasters for the UK. The UK kept the Republic dirt poor as a deliberate act. Accession to the EEC in 1973 was the start of the Republic casting off the English yoke. Brexiteers
ignored Ireland until the Irish bit them in the arse and put them under the cosh. Gibraltar and the sovereign bases are very relevant.
As usual when a Brexiteer is presented with fact you produce some airey fairey twaddle that barely makes sense. I am talking the real
world, you are off believing in unicorns. Come back with facts to challenge my argument if you can.
world
This is the consequence of the new LibDem position. Since Corbyn managed to push them out to extreme Remain territory (revocation), now he can accept soft Brexit and confront them with it.
The thing is that most of the Tories voted for May’s deal before. Even BoJo supported it once IIRC. If Labour accepts it now, then it would be really difficult for them not to cooperate to some degree. Can it pass without the LibDems, SNP and hard Brexiteers? Would BoJo join in? Those are open questions and open possibilities at the moment.
I don’t say that is a good outcome generally but it might be good for the major parties at the moment as it is a kind of compromise that both LibDems and Farage reject. Moreover they can keep their differences about the question of second referendum. I wouldn’t say it is “amazingly stupid” from Labour. It is a move calculated in advance.
Can it pass without the LibDems, SNP and hard Brexiteers?
Again I ask what am I missing here, the conservatives + Labour = a vast majority of parliament, I counted the LibDem MPs at the HoC web page this morning, all 17 of them. SNP is bigger but Scotland is still just 5% of the UK population so can’t thwart the combined power of conservatives and Labour. Brexit Party? 11% maybe?
So, if it would end all this then I say go for the softer May Brexit and fix it’s problems later. At least they will be out.
I’m confused….
A vote is held on Brexit…
A slim majority vote to leave…
And now, in the name of ‘democracy,’ those who don’t agree with the slim majority are actively subverting that will….
These actions simply point out that democracy is really a sham….
The will of the majority (on any issue) is only to be adhered to when it conforms with the will of the political intelligentsia…
The vote was 52% to 48%. A solid win.
British citizens voted to leave the EU in the largest vote in British histroy.
Despite the fact the British media was overwhelmingly pro Remain and the Brexit supporters had no money and no media campaign.
To 2banana,
Exactly.
This whole sorry episode starkly highlights that the “Sheepeople” shall only be given as much power and influence as their “Political Shepherds” ordain. The political class (largely comprised of remainers) have zero problem openly subverting the ‘will of the people’ to serve their own aims, but are the first to demand adherence to an action they want under the guise that it’s the ‘will of the people’..
The Liberal Dems have finally clearly stated their aims – STOP BREXIT at all costs….ignore the vote. The people who voted to leave are simply stupid ignoramuses who don’t understand the finer points of the overall ramifications. they are to be ignored.
The hypocrisy is nauseating… Hence democracy is an illusion..
Technically, a vote wasn’t held on Brexit. A vote was held to get Parliament to Brexit. Parliament has so far failed to get that done.It’s not clear what should be done now. Basically pro Brexit groups promised a bunch of impossible stuff to get Brexit to pass and now can’t deliver it.
Hi Mish. Avid Brexiteer from Québec here. I have a question for you: do you think Boris could invoke the Civil Contingencies Act to call an emergency election and potentially suspend the Benn Bill long enough to force a no-deal?
This act allows the PM to suspend any law for 30 days in a situation of emergency, except for the Human Right Act 1998 and the Civil Contingencies Act itself. The idea being that if you suspend the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011, you can go to the Queen and directly ask her to dissolve Parliament like in the old days.
Jeff Taylor seems to think this is a legal impossibility (the election part at least) since the Queen apparently lost her royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament when she gave royal assent/consent to the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011: link to youtube.com
I am no constitutional lawyer (I’m not even British), but the way I understand it, the Queen still has that power, Parliament just decided the PM/Privy Council could not advice her to dissolve Parliament. And since she’s not supposed to act on her own, the Parliament can achieve the same result by limiting the PM/Privy Council’s range of actions.
Do not know
I rather doubt this is the response but we have seen one hell of a lot of strange things. So I literally have a hard time ruling anything out – even some weird resignation ploy even though just a hew days ago I said “no chance” to resignation
The New Statesman’s (micro) article on the issue tries to argue a state of emergency cannot be called in this situation, but their argumentation is so bad, it has the reverse effect:
“Brexiteers have argued that Johnson could use the act to avoid being forced to request a Brexit extension, or to override the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and call a general election. Crucially, however, there are multiple conditions that the government must meet in order to satisfy the law. An event or situation is defined as threatening human welfare only if it involves, causes or may cause: loss of human life; human illness or injury; homelessness; damage to property; disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel; disruption of a system of communication; disruption of facilities for transport; or disruption of services relating to health.”
Project Fear propaganda could easily be used against remoaners in this context (even in Court), as they’ve been shouting for months about food and medicine shortages and paralysed ports.
The same article goes on to somehow argue this: “Though some of these conditions would potentially be met in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the government has no obvious grounds to declare an emergency in advance.”
Yet in the previous paragraph, they said: “An event or situation is defined as threatening human welfare only if it involves, causes or MAY cause…”.
By that logic, would they seriously argue a future government would break the law by invoking the Civil Contingencies Act if a massive asteroid were to hit the UK within a week? Would this government have to wait AFTER the impact before calling a state of Emergency?!
One minute I agree with you the next… Isn’t Brexit fun? If the liar did invoke the civil contingency Act then this would show that we Remainers are right that Brexit is a catastrophe. From my point of view bring it on concede everything to our side. Beautiful.
Or maybe it’s Brussels unwilling to negotiate a real deal + no majority in parliament + opposition parties unwilling to call an election that’s creating chaos and a potential emergency… See what I did here?
It also sounds to me like antisemitic communist Corbyn is the real liar here. Been calling for an election for 2 years and now that the PM is calling his bluff he’s scared shitlless at the prospect of his disgraceful career coming to an end.
And what about the hundreds of liars in Parliament? Didn’t like 80% of them vote to trigger Article 50 a few months ago, knowing full well that No Deal was the default option? Didn’t they get elected on manifestoes that promised they would respect the referendum result?
I tell you what, Boris has got to be the worst dictator ever. Somebody has to tell him that it’s not a dictator’s job to implement the will of the people or call for new elections. Very confusing stuff.
But it would be a Pyrrhic victory because there would be then a general election in which the conservatives win a majority (at least with the help of Brexit party which Johnson ruled out today FOR THE TIME BEING).
Que sera sera whatever will be will be the futures not ours to see, que sera sera
Starting to not care a bit Avid? I know the feeling, I am watching it because it is good theater and am learning a lot about the parliamentary system, but not really that invested in the outcome, other than the fact I am also an EU citizen in Ireland. I will not live there though because it is a lost cause EU welfare state that traded it’s Irishness for a dole check.
Not at all, my father was Ulster Irish but I was born in England. A friend has a son who owns an air conditioning business. He manufactures all he needs in the UK (apart from the electrics) and then his guys deliver and install it all over Europe. He says that this is about 20% of his business. With a no deal this portion of his business falls away.At the Border he will have to pay VAT, the full amount, in cash. We will drop out of the EU VAT regime so god knows how he will reclaim this. Each item in his load will have to have a separate customs declaration form etc…etc… To cap it all his guys are going to need work visas to work in the EU. He is desperately worried and is bound to lay off two or three of his people. To lose 20% of your business is no laughing matter. That sort of thing angers me.
Well, what he loses in his continental business in the scenario you describe he should more than make up for with the former contracts in the UK that were done by EU companies, this is not a worry or a foregone loss but an opportunity, because after all, if the EU is going to do all this to him the UK will also be doing it to now “foreign” businesses that have been stealing his domestic trade.
There is no doubt going to be a period of adjustment on both sides of the channel, but in the end business will get done, because both sides need the business.
Then also you have Trump saying he wants to expand trade with the UK by double or triple, pie in the sky to be sure, but a trade deal with the US even remotely what Trump is wanting would be more than the 20% of your friends loss. Yes, our democratic house is saying they will block any trade deal that threatens the Irish backstop or the Good Friday agreements, but I seriously doubt Johnson wants Ireland thrown into tumult over Brexit, he will want a deal that protects Ulster too. What he is saying is the UK has to go on October 31, it is not he who is saying there should be a hard border, it is the EU and remainers that are saying if they leave the EU there will be a hard border because they will threaten both Ireland and the US with that because they have zero scruples, just as they have sabotaged ANY deal at all. They do not want to leave the EU and they are saying they will make sure everyone regrets it if they do.
Fortunately the democrats in congress do not have the power to stop a free trade deal with the UK. The house might try to hold one up but we also have an election coming up next year, and attempts by house democrats to stop Brexit is not going to be taken lightly or seen as any of our congress’s business.
And what is the worst that can happen? Britain was an independent nation from the time the Roams left till it joined the EU, it has always managed somehow to thrive. It will again.
The problem is that the EU is not doing this to him. No deal means that the EU will treat him as they do anyone else who is not an EU citizen in an EU country. The Brexiteers are doing this to him.
What I was saying is that if he has to pay the VAT at the border with no way to recoup it, so he loses 20% of his business because it has become prohibitively expensive to do business in the EU for he and by other Brits in general, then the reciprocal is also true for the businesses of the EU delivering goods and services to the UK. Those EU businesses that now will find the UK too expensive for them to survive in will leave a vacuum that British businesses will fill. I am applying ceteris paribus to this without knowing exactly what it is that your mate’s son is actually doing, just saying in general theory that if he is making money doing something and now will not be able to because of a possible no deal Brexit, someone else will fill his shoes and make that money instead. But, the UK is not going to stand for being cut out of the EU markets and sit idly by with nothing to say about it, they will simply impose equal hardship on EU business in the UK so your enterprises will be the ones that that now do that business at home. What I am saying is that the business, the demand for goods and services on both sides of the channel will not simply die because of Brexit. All this will do is change the cost and price of the rendering of that service, if taxes and tariffs are erected then the local provide of said goods and services will have an advantage.
Unless there is some special circumstance in your example I am at a loss to understand how this would be bad for your friend’s boy. And even if he individually does have some sort of special disadvantage my point on a macro basis still holds.
Brussels negotiated a deal which was acceptable o May. The liar says that the backstop is undemocratic. It was proposed by May. The Brexiteers wish to make an Anti free trade agreement which is stupid. I don’t know why you need a negotiation when one of the parties wishes to diverge from the other. One of the parties wishes to leave the largest most comprehensive FTA and customs union and is surprised when the other side says this will cost you because you cannot have your cake and eat it. Corbyn, whatever else he is is not antisemitic. Nobody but a fool would have fallen for Johnson’s Baldric like plan. For the first time in his life Corbyn followed Blairs advice and now the Liar is dangling in the wind. No deal is such a catastrophe that no reasonable person could advocate for it. Only a fool would vote to be poorer.
Only a fool would relinquish his choices under the threat of being made poorer. Blair had charisma, but the Iraq war was his end, that and the load of domestic security legislation he brought in, he’s burnt.
May and Brussels, well it can be said that May negotiated a deal that was suitable for Brussels, but the truth is none if this takes place in a void, that applies equally in terms of UK/EU synchronisation. Brexit is a wildcard, brought in for reasons probably less to do with satisfying public demand than we would like to imagine. There it is though, along with all the slack concessions and political treachery that accompanied joining EC, as well as the current state of EU, where people are not eating cake incidentally.
The divergence of parties, surely you talk of the unnecessary election that brought in reliance on DUP ? The theme of backstop ? The exageration of the terms of the good friday agreement and their re-politicisation? We could go back to the 1909 for a similar scenario, constitutional and all if you like, “saved by war” was it ?
As to what is actually afoot, well that is less than obvious, and I suppose we will not know if Johnson asked for her majesty to deny assent to the latest bill, nor if granting assent was recognition of consent – at least until if he later challenges the instructions contained. I doubt he would bring royal decision into dispute this way though.
The short of it though is that most people wanting out of EU are really not that interested in the political and legal intrigue that goes on, nor even the economic effects that might occur – they are just not at ease with EU and what it represents, and the further disconnected the sooner will do. We have had several decades to take decisions like this, they don’t come from an ad on a brexit bus.
I did find it interesting that Johnson said this: “I will not ask for another delay”.
That tells me that he plans to make it abundantly clear that the Crown is not asking for an extension, it is Parliament doing so through the Benn bill, and nothing more. I don’t know how the EU is going to react to that sort of situation- listen to the Crown or listen to Parliament, but if I had to make a wager, the extension would be denied in that situation. In fact, as the Prime Minister, Johnson can make it tough for the EU to grant an extension, and this may well be his plan.
As I wrote the other day before the Benn bill was finalized, I don’t think it will be nearly enough to stop Brexit on October 31st if no deal is reached- to stop it, Parliament will have to do a VONC before the 31st and either call new elections or replace Johnson as PM. Half-measures won’t ultimately succeed, and this is what the Benn bill always was- a half-measure.
Avid, can’t edit the above because it has not shown up yet in the forum, but it occurs to me that your friend’s son might live on the continent, if that is the case I see your point more clearly, I had assumed that he was a Brit manufacturing in the UK.
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that if your own countrymen advocate a policy which will harm you this provokes a visceral hatred. This isn’t a case of economic theory this is personal. And it is being repeated all over the country. I’m afraid you have to witness the rage engendered to realise how dangerous the situation is in the UK.
As a gay man I certainly understand your point here. I have decades of experience with my own countrymen trying to harm me, physically as well as economically.
“The liar has behaved in such a manner that it is now possible for the Ex Tories to abstain in a VONC on a Corbyn administration.”
Possible or likely? I believe the latter but it may not matter.
Swinson has stated she will not back Corbyn.
If true (who the hell really knows?) and Corbyn the egomaniac will not back down (again who knows?), we are at No Deal on Oct 31.
The position of the ex-Tory rebels might even be irrelevant as the SNP also cannot stand Corbyn. DUP will certainly not back Corbyn.
It is also possible (probable?) that many people who don’t necessarily like Johnson will vote “for Johnson” on their ballot as a means to deliver a giant middle finger to the political class. Johnson might mistake that as support for himself when that is not really the case.
PS — if anyone thinks “that liar” is different from all the other liars, then you are not paying attention. Being a liar and being a politician is pretty much synonymous — so Johnson lying (or not) is hardly a distinguishing feature
This all seems rather confusing. Boris has no support in the House of Commons for any of his proposals. The House of Commons as currently constituted don’t want an election. And they don’t want to comply with the referendum where the majority voted to leave the EU.
Bottom line is that in the UK there is no democracy.
We have a parliamentary democracy, a representative democracy. MPs are there to exercise their judgement as to what is best for the country. They were elected in2017. If you want to know more google Edward Burke an 18th century philosopher who explains it better than I
The whole area of referendum relies totally on MPs being honourable. Sadly many are not.
The remainer MPs should have recused themselves from the withdrawal process. Brexit backing MPs then would have had a choice between a deal and no deal, and we would be out a long time ago one way or another.
As soon as you get a majority of remainer MPs interfering with that withdrawal process, splitting the decision 3 ways as they buy time, then the principle of referendums deciding constitutional matters falls into disrepute. An honest speaker could have played a vital role here, telling the members that they have to honestly try and bring the result of the referendum to be. As we know, he was in the tank for remain.
Sorry for Edward read Edmund.
The House of Commons really has nothing to say about Brexit after their constituents vote in a legally binding plebiscite to invoke Article 50 of the EU compact as passed in 2009 by the Treaty of Lisbon. The UK government is beholden to the voters to carry out their wishes.
I think it is germane to remind people that LABOUR had agitated against membership in both the EEC and later the EU after passage of the Maastricht Treaty, and it was they who made it a priority to leave that got Margret Thatcher elected in the first place.
It was they who basically forced Cameron to hold an independence referendum against the will of the conservatives in order for him to be reelected. He made a promise and kept it.
From Time: “The current U.K. Prime Minister, David Cameron, rejected calls for a referendum on his country’s continued membership of the E.U. in 2012, but announced less than a year later that his Conservative government would hold one if re-elected in 2015.
Soon after he was voted in for a second term, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced in the British Parliament to kickstart the process that culminated on Friday.
Subsequently, in a speech to the Parliament’s House of Commons in February 2016, Cameron announced that the referendum would be held on June 23. A staunch advocate of remaining within the E.U., Cameron announced his resignation soon after the results of the vote were declared on Friday.”
So, look how the wheel has turned, it is the Tory government that wants to leave and the opposition that has done everything in their power for years now to stop it. They are the ones that made a no deal Brexit inevitable in order to scare the population into voting again and rejecting Brexit the second time around. No wonder people are confused and annoyed that this has dragged on so long. That is why BoJo is a bit of a hero over here, he says he will end it on October 31 come what may, and I know I would personally mail food and medicine to the UK if it would stop all this nonsense.
Q: Is there any chance the party dumps Corbyn at the conference?
Corbyn sure will not voluntarily go. His ego seems nearly as big as Trump’s
Avid has a point that I somewhat agree with
Let me put it differently and I bet he agrees with this.
If Corbyn would resign as party head, Labour + Lib Dems could agree to form a winning pact
That would depend on who replaced Corbyn. It would be someone equally left wing because the Blairites are a busted flush. There are about 450,000 members who would die rather than vote for a social democrat. Any coalition would contain strange bedfellows but I think that Swinson, SNP etc could tie Corbyn in such knots that they could accept him as PM. Policies that he would have to drop the recognition of Palestine, dropping his plans for confiscating 10% of companies shares and giving them to workers. He could keep his promise of Nationalising the Railways and Utilities because everyone knows that they are owned by French, German, Spanish and Dutch state owned companies. We may as well own them and have the profits for UK Ltd. I agree that minus Corbyn as a remainer I would be as pleased as punch.
by social democrat do mean Lib Dem?
It’s Commie talk for establishment centre-left character à la Blair.
You put it so much more pithily than I.)
Social democrats are the right wing of the Labour Party, Corbyn represents the Democratic socialist wing. I know ” What has Rome ever done for us?” Basically in the UK it is an argument about how much state intervention there should be in an Economy. The starkest example is that Blair was not bothered about and did not care who owned what as long as the taxes rolled in so that the money could be spent on the NHS, early years education etc to improve the lives of Labour voters. Corbyn wishes to pump prime the economy by going big on infrastructure ( In fairness compared to Europe our infrastructure is bad) Corbyn also believes in free education. It was Blair who started charging for University Education. The LibDems believe in free enterprise with some state regulation. They also spend less money in the social sphere and are sort of capitalists with a conscience. So the question is could there be a coalition on the German model of CSU-CDU-SPD? If they can why not here in the UK.
Corbyn and McDonnell are also admirers of Chavez, Maduro, Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. Their politics are straight out of the chavistas’ playbook.
Govt owned businesses don’t make profits – by definition.
Tosh, our Railways and Utilities make profits. These companies are in effect Nationalised companies owned by the following states: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland.
There will soon be a Labour Party conference. Hopefully this totally stupid current policy will be ditched and Labour’s new policy will be to offer a referendum during which Labour will say they will campaign to remain. If this happens this will be enough for a LIBdem- Labour alliance in the current parliament and subsequent election. If Corbyn doesn’t change the stupid policy then God knows. It is still possible for Corbyn to become Prime Minister in October but he needs to change his policy to achieve power. The liar has behaved in such a manner that it is now possible for the Ex Tories to abstain in a VONC on a Corbyn administration.
The only thing standing between Labour and power is Corbyn and the other Marxist anti-semites.
Vote Liberal Democrat to stop democracy!
The Liberal Democrats show themselves to be anti democracy.