Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Smores]

I'm not really sure it's worked for them at all. All the arguments in favour of it are rooted in the counter factual ('well, if they'd taken a strong position they might have lost voters in x, y, and z') whilst their irrelevance on the political stage has pushed the window further away from what they want from a point after the referendum when even Boris was said to be in favour of a soft Brexit to the ERG managing push the Tories harder and harder.

At the same time, the great political play of not taking a position has, at best, put them very slightly ahead of a government that is almost historically incompetent. Polling figures that would, in any other scenario rightly worry an opposition party.

So I'm struggling to see it as anything approaching a win for Labour. I think they'll unfortunately be mired in the whole mess as a party too spineless to oppose the excesses of the Tories feckwittery.

Of course it's not a win, it's only damage control.

The polling data is very heavily tied into Brexit so I'm not sure the usual arguments apply. The next 2 week could make or break the party for a long time i just think anyone expecting anything substantial in the TV debates is going to be very disappointed.

I still can't get my head around the debate, i hope Corbyn calls May out for dodging one at the GE.

 

[Adisa]

It's simply too late for Labour to steal the narrative on brexit.

 

[Kentonio]

The story about Labour strategists trying to shape the debate so he could talk about austerity instead of Brexit, showed exactly how much of a feck he gives about it.

 

[matherto]

It's simply too late for Labour to steal the narrative on brexit.

They also seem pathologically incapable of doing anything beyond saying Theresa May is bad.

 

[matherto]

Had an argument about brexit with my dad (a Leave voter) last night. Depressing.

It's all I ever get from my dad now. Anytime I'm in the same room as him it's 'oh I bet you're happy now aren't you?'.

I don't even know how to respond anymore. How I'm supposed to be happy with the alteration to the timeline that was foisted upon us and everything that might happen in the future because of it I don't know.

He's also someone that doesn't accept that semantics matter and that the ballot paper simply saying Leave meant we had every possibility of Brexit from walling up and having patrols to stop immigrants coming anywhere near our little island to BRINO. To him, 'we voted to leave' means whatever he wanted, not what the actual vote was.

 

[Honest John]

They also seem pathologically incapable of doing anything beyond saying Theresa May is bad.

Their strategy is to wait and see and then skew their reaction to whatever occurs to their best advantage. Having sat on the fence with fudged statements throughout they can also claim they told us all this from day one.

Our relationship with the EU is completely fecked forever and that is job done for Jezzer. It's not a concern any longer which is why he's happy to have a TV debate that is 100% about austerity.

 

[Dobba]

The story about Labour strategists trying to shape the debate so he could talk about austerity instead of Brexit, showed exactly how much of a feck he gives about it.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I don't get this narrative that if the deal is not accepted, then we risk no deal, or no Brexit.

What's the risk of no Brexit?

 

[Stick]

I totally agree with your first point but you have to take into account the greed and immorality of the human being. People got rich off of selling loans. It mattered not if the people that the loans were made to could afford them. It was all about get rich quick.

On the second point. Yes the Tories like blaming the EU for our problems but if we leave and the problems get worse will the public continue to agree with them or believe that it was all the fault of the party who took them out of Europe?

I dont disagree with anything you have said. On your last point I think the people will realise too late that the EU really wasnt the problem.

 

[Stick]

I don't get this narrative that if the deal is not accepted, then we risk no deal, or no Brexit.

What's the risk of no Brexit?

I would say that your position within the EU would likely be weakened slightly because of the Brexit attempt but no one knows.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I would say that your position within the EU would likely be weakened slightly because of the Brexit attempt but no one knows.

Serves us fecking right then, doesn't it?

 

[Bury Red]

I would say that your position within the EU would likely be weakened slightly because of the Brexit attempt but no one knows.

Our position in the EU has always been weak and seen as something of a pariah because of our continual dismissal of the EU elections as an excuse to protest by sending numpties like Farrage to Brussels who only serve to disrupt and show contempt for the Union when they can be arsed to show up at all.

If we were to perhaps take our membership seriously, elect decent MEPs and hold them to the task of guiding Europe then maybe there might be a warmer welcome for us but if we're only going to turn up and feign superiority whilst doing feck all then we deserve a weakened position.

 

[Smores]

So they're delaying the immigration white paper now as well. What parliament is being asked to vote on is so flimsy and insubstantial I'm surprised they're not refusing to vote.

An economic analysis that doesn't cover the actual proposal, hidden legal advice, essentially wiki copy and paste industry papers. Farce

 

[GloryHunter07]

I don't get this narrative that if the deal is not accepted, then we risk no deal, or no Brexit.

What's the risk of no Brexit?

Brexiters see it as a risk. The wording is aimed directly at them.

 

[MadMike]

Serves us fecking right then, doesn't it?

If Brexit does get scrapped (unlikely), I imagine the EU will insert a clause that doesn't allow for article 50 activation for another 20 years or so.

Just in case we try to pull the same stunt twice within 2-3 years or something.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

May should change her motto from 'Strong and Stable' to 'Fish and Foreigners'

 

[Stick]

Serves us fecking right then, doesn't it?

I agree yes. This whole mess could easily have been avoided.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Just watching Stephen Barclay, new Brexit secretary, giving evidence to the committee, third one in a row who has no idea what he's doing.

 

[Adisa]

So they're delaying the immigration white paper now as well. What parliament is being asked to vote on is so flimsy and insubstantial I'm surprised they're not refusing to vote.

An economic analysis that doesn't cover the actual proposal, hidden legal advice, essentially wiki copy and paste industry papers. Farce

I really is. They've given parliament a blank paper and ordered them to sign whatever is on it .This government is a shambles.

 

[Kentonio]

This stuff about the legal advice is frankly bizarre. There's a binding commons motion saying they have to release it, how can they just turn around and say no?

 

[Adisa]

You get the impression May genuinely thinks Brexit is all about immigration.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I don't get this narrative that if the deal is not accepted, then we risk no deal, or no Brexit.

What's the risk of no Brexit?

It would seriously undermine the Tories as they would fail to deliver on Brexit.

It would be political currency for Labour of significant strength. Kind of like Iraq is to the hard left within the Labour party. Whenever Labour are in doubt they can just shout 'you failed to deliver Brexit and the democratic will of the British people'.

 

[Smores]

This stuff about the legal advice is frankly bizarre. There's a binding commons motion saying they have to release it, how can they just turn around and say no?

They can't and they're (hopefully) about to be taken to task on it. The ERG have just said it's been padded out substantially as the original was only 6 pages long. May has always done this, she tries to deliver whatever the outcome so she'll try to do so even if it means contempt of parliament.

This is proper dodgy dossier territory and it's not only this May is doing it in every forum and official release. It's a huge swindle and when she's toppled we'll hear off all the dirty tactics.

 

[Kentonio]

They can't and they're (hopefully) about to be taken to task on it. The ERG have just said it's been padded out substantially as the original was only 6 pages long. May has always done this, she tries to deliver whatever the outcome so she'll try to do so even if it means contempt of parliament.

This is proper dodgy dossier territory and it's not only this May is doing it in every forum and official release. It's a huge swindle and when she's toppled we'll hear off all the dirty tactics.

I think they'll do everything they can to drag it out until after the vote.

 

[Honest John]

You get the impression May genuinely thinks Brexit is all about immigration.

To most leavers it was. All this bollocks about sovereignty, money and third country trade deals was only the concern of the hard core leavers like Ukip and other eurosceptics. They cynically exploited the plight of hard up people, especially in the East and North East by telling them that the source of all their woes were immigrants. They blurred the lines between EU and non-EU with posters which were frankly misleading at best and disgusting at worse.

Latest figures appear to show that the reduction of EU net migration has been replaced by an increase in non-EU net migration. Which tells you what? As the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world (whatever we are), it is difficult to reduce overall net migration if you want growth to continue. So the whole argument starts to crumble really.

 

[sun_tzu]

It would seriously undermine the Tories as they would fail to deliver on Brexit.

It would be political currency for Labour of significant strength. Kind of like Iraq is to the hard left within the Labour party. Whenever Labour are in doubt they can just shout 'you failed to deliver Brexit and the democratic will of the British people'.

TBH I think if May cant get her deal through she will just switch to saying ok then - will of the people is to leave, will of parliment is not to accept the deal - we leave with no deal

If Labour try to attach an ammendment seeking to prevent no deal then she simplay calls an election and fights it on the basis of an in / out referendum

Basically its her only way to survive I think - deal gets voted down... she switches straight away to hard brexit and gets onside the ERG and DUP to survive the confidence vote

They will say they delivered on the will of the people - and any economic hardship they will say is labours fault for playing party politics and not supporting the deal in the national interest - not saying everybody will side with that - but its a spinable point of view and will be consistently delivered over and over and over again

 

[sun_tzu]

This stuff about the legal advice is frankly bizarre. There's a binding commons motion saying they have to release it, how can they just turn around and say no?

I believe the convention in UK law is that information and advice from a lawyer to a client can not be forced to be handed over (I guess the UK equivalent of client / attorney privilege) and therefore they feel they are under no obligation to publish the full raw advice - similarly I believe the full advice over the iraq war was not published citing the same rules (and at the time May was saying this was outrageous)

On a personal basis I think its reached the point that its more harmful not to publish - if its not published those against the deal will just assume the worst anyway - it just makes the process look (even more) dis-organised

 

[Honest John]

DUP love all this legal stuff. They are past masters at finding an 'if' instead of a 'when' in a 585 page document and claiming, in the best Rev. Paisley tradition, "WE'VE BEEN SOLD DOWN THE RIVAAAAR"

 

[Kentonio]

I believe the convention in UK law is that information and advice from a lawyer to a client can not be forced to be handed over (I guess the UK equivalent of client / attorney privilege) and therefore they feel they are under no obligation to publish the full raw advice - similarly I believe the full advice over the iraq war was not published citing the same rules (and at the time May was saying this was outrageous)

On a personal basis I think its reached the point that its more harmful not to publish - if its not published those against the deal will just assume the worst anyway - it just makes the process look (even more) dis-organised

As far as I'm aware, that kind of privilege has absolutely no power in the face of a binding commons motion. Parliament is sovereign. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

 

[Sassy Colin]

It would seriously undermine the Tories as they would fail to deliver on Brexit.

It would be political currency for Labour of significant strength. Kind of like Iraq is to the hard left within the Labour party. Whenever Labour are in doubt they can just shout 'you failed to deliver Brexit and the democratic will of the British people'.

At least the country won't be destroyed, I'm rather more worried about that, tbh.

 

[Smores]

I believe the convention in UK law is that information and advice from a lawyer to a client can not be forced to be handed over (I guess the UK equivalent of client / attorney privilege) and therefore they feel they are under no obligation to publish the full raw advice - similarly I believe the full advice over the iraq war was not published citing the same rules (and at the time May was saying this was outrageous)

On a personal basis I think its reached the point that its more harmful not to publish - if its not published those against the deal will just assume the worst anyway - it just makes the process look (even more) dis-organised

The question then is who is the client? They're acting on behalf of parliament so i find it hard to contemplate parliament not being the client.

I thought the iraq war advice was released eventually?

And if the deal has been agreed it can't damage negotiations which was an earlier argument, I'm not sure what their reason is beyond 'convention'. The client has every right to share

 

[Mozza]

The story about Labour strategists trying to shape the debate so he could talk about austerity instead of Brexit, showed exactly how much of a feck he gives about it.

Part of the vote for Brexit was a revolt against austerity so its entirely appropriate

 

[Kentonio]

Part of the vote for Brexit was a revolt against austerity so its entirely appropriate

Its supposed to be a debate about how the main two political options in the country would deal with Brexit. Corbyn not approving of austerity while having no clear position on Brexit is not helpful to that debate.

 

[Mozza]

Its supposed to be a debate about how the main two political options in the country would deal with Brexit. Corbyn not approving of austerity while having no clear position on Brexit is not helpful to that debate.

'We will go for a softer Brexit because the problems you've been told are caused by the EU are actually the result of Tory austerity'

 

[sun_tzu]

The question then is who is the client? They're acting on behalf of parliament so i find it hard to contemplate parliament not being the client.

I thought the iraq war advice was released eventually?

And if the deal has been agreed it can't damage negotiations which was an earlier argument, I'm not sure what their reason is beyond 'convention'. The client has every right to share

released in 2005 I think
as for who is the client - my understanding is that the AG provided advice to the government not the whole parliament?... might need a proper legal bod to confirm but thats my understanding

 

[Smores]

released in 2005 I think
as for who is the client - my understanding is that the AG provided advice to the government not the whole parliament?... might need a proper legal bod to confirm but thats my understanding

It doesnt look like anyone in parliament even knows to be honest. He's answerable to the crown but his role (or one of) is government legal advisor so it's arguable. He also has seperate roles to Scotland and NI so I'd be intrigued to find out if they could ask for seperate legal advice.

Going to be a long angry week this

 

[Kentonio]

'We will go for a softer Brexit because the problems you've been told are caused by the EU are actually the result of Tory austerity'

The softer Brexit the EU have already said is unattainable as they’re unwilling to reopen negotiations?

 

[sun_tzu]

As far as I'm aware, that kind of privilege has absolutely no power in the face of a binding commons motion. Parliament is sovereign. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

As far as I know the commons only has the right to hold May in contempt of parliment if she does not publish - but can not force the publication

what happens if she is held in contempt - well thats most probably a telling off prom the speaker and thats about it

In modern times, the House has shown increasing reluctance to exercise its powers even when evidence of a contempt is clear. Indeed, in 1967, the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (a Committee specially set up to consider every aspect of privilege) recommended that "the House should exercise its penal jurisdiction (a) in any event as sparingly as possible, and (b) only when it is satisfied that to do so is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its Members or its Officers from such improper obstruction or attempt at or threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions". This recommendation was endorsed by the Committee of Privileges in 1977 and approved by the House and given immediate effect on 6 February 1978. This decision guides the Speaker, the House, and the appropriate Committee. A new Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was set up in the 1996-97 Parliament, to consider the current situation on privilege, given, especially, the aftermath of the 'cash for questions' affairs and on Members' ability to waive privilege. It reported on 30 March 1999 (HC 214 1998/99, available on the internet at: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4302.htm The House debated the report on a motion for the adjournment on 27 October 1999, but has not yet agreed to implement its findings. In the 2010-11 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced its intention to publish a Draft Parliamentary Privilege Bill to build upon the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privileges’ 1999 report. If the witness is in attendance, he or she may be brought by the Serjeant at Arms to the Bar of the House and before the assembled Members, to be admonished by the Speaker. If not in attendance, the witness may be ordered into the custody of the Serjeant, by use of the Warrant, to be brought to the Bar at a date and time specified by the House. The last stranger (nonMember) to be brought before the Bar and admonished by the Speaker was John Junor on 24 January 1957, for an article published in the Sunday Express casting doubt on the honour and integrity of Members. Junor apologised and no further action was taken. Members are admonished standing in their places. The last Member to be so admonished was Mr Tam Dalyell on 24 July 1968.

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/g06.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament

 

[Silva]

The softer Brexit the EU have already said is unattainable as they’re unwilling to reopen negotiations?

They've said a lot of things. If the UK gets rid of May's red lines and is willing to join the EEA/Single market the EU will vote to extend A50 negotiations.

 

[Kentonio]

They've said a lot of things. If the UK gets rid of May's red lines and is willing to join the EEA/Single market the EU will vote to extend A50 negotiations.

So why doesn’t Corbyn want to just focus on putting that forward as the official Labour position? Why the desire to talk about austerity instead? Are there still people who don’t know Labour are anti-austerity?