Westministenders: Deadline Day #1

[RedToothBrush]

We have hit another Deadline Day.

As it stands, the EU are looking for more progress. May is digging in her heels by suggesting there is new a requirement for backstop to a backstop. The backstop to all intents and purposes is the GFA. So May is saying in effect, that the EU are forcing her to put in provisions to protect an international agreement we are signed up to, and if we breech it we risk peace in NI.

After lots of noise it seems that the Cabinet have decided to stick by May. For now.

The EU look like they are talking as if their meeting next month will exclude the UK and just go straight to No Deal planning.

There is also other talk of alternatives to allow the UK to stay in the customs union. But theres not much to that and it still doesn't solve the ERG and the DUP problem.

May is vastly unestimating how much the ERG and the DUP want to break the GFA. Which is a huge misjudgment.

There is also talk of the final final Deadline Day actually being Dec 13. For various reasons its not. Thats 29th March.

So Wednesday is Deadline Day #1. Expect more.

Big ChocFrenzy - how can EFTA make 'good behavour' be legally binding?

why do they call it the peoples'? thought was had already ocurred

....and how many expected?

Apparently Gibraltar has been sorted but it's all rather secretive.

realinfonews.com/gibraltar-brexit-deal-done-says-spains-sanchez?fbclid=IwAR3_F7rW1g5lOO3GaP-FASWI7CmdObaEW-CyGrn3ZyqWfn9dcE2bMzgjDYI

that post has come out a mess

more like, why call it the Peoples' Vote - thought that was done in 2016

I don't think anyone really cares out Gibraltar, just a place for cheap booze and cigs, and tax avoiders

from PV website:

"""This Government has failed on Brexit: there is no mandate for its car crash proposal or for a disastrous no-deal Brexit. We won’t let them get away with a bad deal - that’s why we will be there in Central London making the case for a People’s Vote."""

however, this doesn't add up as there actually IS a mandate for Brexit

To be more precise, there is a mandate for 'a' Brexit (the vote of 2016); but, as this quote actually says, there isn't one for 'its car crash proposal or for a disastrous no-deal Brexit.' The ballot paper didn't allow voters to specify HOW we should leave the EU.

thing is , it did, actually

Cameron and various other high-ups were quite clear that voting to Leave the EU would mean leaving SM and CU.

They even sent everyone a leaflet, or did you miss out on that somehow

calling it 'its car crash proposal or for a disastrous no-deal Brexit' , is just propaganda/rhetoric

Being 'quite clear' in campaign materials is not the same as asking voters explicitly to vote on a particular issue. The question was simply 'leave or remain'.

And others including Nigel Farage advocated options including a Norway-type deal.

Theresa May, for all her idiocy and stubbornness, does actually know that no deal would be disastrous, otherwise she'd have stopped running to Brussels and being humiliated by being given ten minutes and then asked to leave the room by now.

I'm surprised someone like yourself gives any thought into what Nigel Farage thinks - or is he now someone you want onboard???

and the great irony here is that all these people tomorrow in favour of 'democracy' are actually marching in an attempt to overtuen it

someone like yourself

and you do realise the the population voted for the Cons in the 2015 election -
was the question on the ballot paper decided already then?

Presumably those who voted Leave, believed the Leave campaign leaders, not Cameron

e.g.
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" (Owen Patterson MP)

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
(Daniel Hannan MEP)

"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland?
Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing"
(Nigel Farage)

"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK"
(Arron Banks)

(Farage, Hannan) Let's stay in the Single Market

In what way is asking for another vote overturning democracy? If you still want to Leave, you can vote to Leave, again. And if it's still the 'will of the people', you'll win, again. And you could even then argue that your mandate is bigger, cos you've won twice in a row.

What's the problem?

I like Alex Andreou's position on this:

Fact one: the referendum question related only to the initial action, not a future destination. There is no clear vision for that, not even among Brexiters.

Fact two: The future destination has turned out very differently from what many voters were told and envisaged - on both sides (see polling from the time of the ref - vast majority thought we were heading for a Norway type deal) - and certainly, a no-deal exit was dismissed as a possible outcome.

Fact three: at the time of actual exit (three years after original vote or up to six with transitional periods being discussed) one of two binary realities will exist - either a majority will a support the destination or a majority won't. If it commands majority support, a PV will confirm it, quelling fears on the Remain side that the original referendum was ill-informed and manipulated. This is a democratic win. If a majority is against it, the country will not be dragged into a future against its will, based on an older vague mandate. This is also a democratic win.

Were the marchers against Universal Credit trying to overthrow the government,
or just exercising their democratic right to protest ?

If we get a Labour government, would you think it wrong to have demonstrations against any of their policies ?

here's the general info regarding the question on ballot:

The Conservative Party published a draft EU Referendum Bill in May 2013, and outlined its plans for renegotiation followed by an in-out vote (i.e. a referendum giving options only of leaving and of remaining in under the current terms, or under new terms if these had become available), were the party to be re-elected in 2015.[7] The draft Bill stated that the referendum had to be held no later than 31 December 2017.[8

IOW - In or Out was voted for in the 2015 election - seem to remember that Con + UKIP dwarfed Lab/Lib Dem

in fact, only SNP oppose the ref itself

Cameron and various other high-ups were quite clear that voting to Leave the EU would mean leaving SM and CU.

My memory is that various high profile Leave campaigners said it wouldn't mean leaving the SM and that Brexit was a Good Thing. People obviously believed them rather than 'Cameron and various other high-ups'.

Cameron: "Brexit will mean leaving the SM"
Farage: "We'll still have full access to the SM"
People (trusting Farage rather than Cameron) vote for Brexit.
Farage: "Everyone knew what they were voting for. Cameron told them"

threetrees, if you decided to buy a house, would you continue with that decision even if a survey revealed the house you had your heart set on had subsidence and rot and was on a floodplain? And the mortgage payments were going to cripple you?

You wouldn't step back and think, hmmm, maybe I need to rethink this decision now I have this new information?

UFennel - because the result of the first ref HAS NOT YET been delivered

where..my chickens@ : rather a bizarre take on the definintion of the word 'fact' .

We might not get any deal.
If we do, it will bear no resemblance to the delusional Leave promises, of keeping all the EU bits we like and none of the bits we don't

JRM said it could take 50 years to see the benefits of Brexit
Did Leavers really expect that long ?

So let's have a vote
Remain vs whatever Brexit deal May has got (this may be no deal)

Then voters can't complain they didn't know what they were getting, if they vote for Brexit.

BCF : no referendum was had regarding UC, so comletely apples and pears post