OV9

Whatever you think about the politics of all this, I'm loving watching all this sovereignty being exercised.

Can someone remind me of the calendar? Did May draw up her redlines before or after the push from the house for a meaningful vote on the withdrawal deal? I'm guessing she drew up her redlines _before_ she realised that she'd have to get the resultant deal through the house, because I can't believe anyone with an ounce of intelligence thought that they could draw those red lines and still carry a majority.

So, the deal is no good, and no deal is no good.

So how's all this going to play out? My biggest fear is that given the Tory party continue to fall apart we end up with a GE, because I know that Corbyn will adopt any policy that will get himself elected. Therefore he'll run on a new referendum and get elected regardless of his other disastrous policies.

I think many people would consider taking 5 years of pain to stay in the EU.

IMO we've established that the commons can't make a decision, this does need to go back to the people. The Conservatives need to realise that.

duncs500 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 am I think many people would consider taking 5 years of pain to stay in the EU.

Which obviously makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever given that what they're seeking to avoid is a no deal Brexit with economic consequences that would be likely to be less extreme that Corbyns plans for massive wealth and income taxes and renationalisations.

We're starting to noticeably lose business now because of this shambles. A lot of our European based wholesale customers are holding orders back until we know what's happening and I assume the same will be happening with European retail customers.

Over 50% of our business goes to Europe, this is going to be fun .

Simon wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:42 pm Whatever you think about the politics of all this, I'm loving watching all this sovereignty being exercised.

I know everybody on both sides enjoys needling each other with trying to find ways to twist and throw back the other's arguments, but what is really happening is simply a dysfunctional hung parliament combined with an extremely difficult political problem that doesn't track party lines.

This whole exercise does show (presuming that Brexit is postponed or cancelled in the long run) that constitutional lawyers' arguments that the UK possesses "residual sovereignty" to repatriate powers and leave the EU is, practically (if not legally), fantasy. The argument that you're exercising "sovereign" decision making power by declining to accept an offer from the EU (the Withdrawal Agreement) to repatriate sovereign decision making powers as the terms on which they're offering you those powers back are unacceptable, is clearly bunk.

The statements key EU players have made in the past about slowly and silently moving things along until there is no going back (or in Junker's case just to "lie" about what you're proposing) have been totally validated here.

ETA: hopefully the ERG and Labour MPs in leave seats now grasp the nettle and vote for May's deal now to actually follow through on this.

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:53 am

duncs500 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 am I think many people would consider taking 5 years of pain to stay in the EU.

Which obviously makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever given that what they're seeking to avoid is a no deal Brexit with economic consequences that would be likely to be less extreme that Corbyns plans for massive wealth and income taxes and renationalisations.

Come on, whilst I agree that it would be a distaster, I don't think you can realistically compare the two. A heavy spending labour government can do some significant damage in the short term, but it can be reversed by a couple of concurrent sensible governments, this we know as it has been done more than once before.

Us exiting the EU is a complete unknown, there will be an unknown ecomonic impact, and I can't see that there would be much opportunity to change our mind. How can you say with any authority that the consequences are likely to be less extreme? Not only short term, but over the next 20, 50, 100 years?

“Many people” isn’t the majority which voted to leave though.

[Cloud Cuckoo Land] Any chance we can roll back entirely from this whole enterprise and accept that Maastricht just can't be undone and we can't go back in time. We therefore have no choice but to stay in the EU but we fundamentally change the way we engage with it - starting with voting actual capable Politicians (contradiction I know) to the EU Parliament (rather than retired civil servants, "party" men and women, and comedy candidates) come June.

Stay in the EU, take it far more seriously in our Voting habits, get in there and sort it our in ours and ultimately everyone's favour ??? [/Cloud cuckoo Land]

Rumours of a 4yr extension being offered. F*** that s***.

She just needs to cross the House and try and find a position that both sides will agree on. Forget a GE or 2nd Ref - the issues are not insurmountable. And I don't know of a single person who wants to face the prospect of another GE, not least given that the issue at hand is splitting both parties. It would be impossible to make a choice (for most people)

dinny_g wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:45 am [Cloud Cuckoo Land] Any chance we can roll back entirely from this whole enterprise and accept that Maastricht just can't be undone and we can't go back in time. We therefore have no choice but to stay in the EU but we fundamentally change the way we engage with it - starting with voting actual capable Politicians (contradiction I know) to the EU Parliament (rather than retired civil servants, "party" men and women, and comedy candidates) come June.

Stay in the EU, take it far more seriously in our Voting habits, get in there and sort it our in ours and ultimately everyone's favour ??? [/Cloud cuckoo Land]

You do come out with some tripe. That's like saying you're going to stay married to someone who you want nothing to do with anymore because it's too difficult to divorce them. Former USSR states managed it FFS and they had even less of a legal framework.

duncs500 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:33 am

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:53 am

duncs500 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:24 am I think many people would consider taking 5 years of pain to stay in the EU.

Which obviously makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever given that what they're seeking to avoid is a no deal Brexit with economic consequences that would be likely to be less extreme that Corbyns plans for massive wealth and income taxes and renationalisations.

Come on, whilst I agree that it would be a distaster, I don't think you can realistically compare the two. A heavy spending labour government can do some significant damage in the short term, but it can be reversed by a couple of concurrent sensible governments, this we know as it has been done more than once before.

Us exiting the EU is a complete unknown, there will be an unknown ecomonic impact, and I can't see that there would be much opportunity to change our mind. How can you say with any authority that the consequences are likely to be less extreme? Not only short term, but over the next 20, 50, 100 years?

Morgan Stanley, Forbes and many others (and I) disagree with that analysis:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -says-bank

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconst ... an-brexit/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... eal-brexit

If Corbyn gets to power, you'll have to wait until the end of his 5 years in power to start to even undo the damage so if investors have to consider a return to a benign environment being the best part of a decade away, that's going to have a hugely negative impact on their decision making. I also think you're confusing previous "heavy spending" Labour governments (i.e. the Brown as Chancellor and PM era) which was generally benign on personal taxation, with 1970s style old Labour "tax them till the pips squeak" which is Corbyn's viewpoint. The City of London can tolerate the first approach but not the second.

Plus of course you're still labouring under the misapprehension that GE>Corbyn=no Brexit. You could have both because the best he's ever going to campaign on is a second vote, not a revocation of article 50, for reasons of his own personal Bennite Eurosceptic beliefs and not to heamorrhage votes in leave constituencies.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:49 am You do come out with some tripe.

I wasn't being entirely serious FFS...

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:47 am And I don't know of a single person who wants to face the prospect of another GE

oh I think you do...

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:13 am This whole exercise does show (presuming that Brexit is postponed or cancelled in the long run) that constitutional lawyers' arguments that the UK possesses "residual sovereignty" to repatriate powers and leave the EU is, practically (if not legally), fantasy. The argument that you're exercising "sovereign" decision making power by declining to accept an offer from the EU (the Withdrawal Agreement) to repatriate sovereign decision making powers as the terms on which they're offering you those powers back are unacceptable, is clearly bunk.

More unfettered bullshit wrapped in legalese from you, GG. We have absolute sovereignty and we can exercise it by simply leaving without a deal on the 29th. The fact that there are consequences that are too unpleasant for our Parliament to bear does not change that fact.

Of course it does - it means we've given away sovereignty and enmeshed ourselves in a structure to the extent that we can't get it back. That is practically, if not legally, a permanent transfer of those powers. You can't then make the argument with a straight face that you can in fact still pull out if you know practically it's not possible.

I'm actually calling out "legalese" as you put it when people argue a technical legal point that in the real world is practically worthless. You cancel Brexit then you have to accept you have no practical ability to re-gain those decisions making powers other than in the sceneario the EU crumbles from the inside out or, they permit you to take those powers back by offering a deal that would be acceptable, such as a two speed EU (which they won't).

It then makes Major's decision to enter into Maastricht without a referendum one which irreversibly changed the constitutional make up of the UK and practically if not legally, bound future parliaments to accept a reduced sphere of competency. If Brexit gets cancelled you get to "win" but remainer constitutional lawyers can't any longer rely technical fig leaf arguments that we haven't permanently divested powers with any credibility.

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:38 am Of course it does - it means we've given away sovereignty and enmeshed ourselves in a structure to the extent that we can't get it back. That is practically, if not legally, a permanent transfer of those powers. You can't then make the argument with a straight face that you can in fact still pull out if you know practically it's not possible.

Wrong. Just pull out without a deal on the 29th. Done.

I struggle to see your point when parliament have faced that precise practical decision only yesterday and decided they couldn't go through with it.

You seem to be advocating no deal to validate the argument that we do have practical sovereignty over the powers we divested. Very odd

GG. wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:41 am I struggle to see your point when parliament have faced that precise practical decision only yesterday and decided they couldn't go through with it.

You seem to be advocating no deal to validate the argument that we do have practical sovereignty over the powers we divested. Very odd

They used their sovereignty and decided not to pursue No Deal . They could have used their sovereignty to decide to go for it. What stopped them wasn't a lack of sovereignty, it was that they didn't want the consequences of exercising their sovereignty.

I don't have to turn up for work every day, but if I don't it will have a severe economic impact on me so I choose to go despite the fact I'd rather sit at home in my pants watching Homes Under The Hammer. Some people accept the impact. It doesn't mean I don't have free will, I've just made a decision.

I think you two are well on track to reach resolution here.