Westminstenders: The Tory Party Spectacular

[RedToothBrush]

A row over parliamentary language and conduct and how MPs are afraid of extremists has over shadowed talk of Brexit.

Cummings has said if you don't want to leave without a deal, vote for a deal.

Yet there isn't a Johnson approved one in front of the Commons and the EU are utterly despairing of Johnson's blank non papers and his full on Trump bullshit.

Then there's the threats to the rule of law.

Apparently there are five known suggestions to bypass the Benn Act and refuse to ask for an extension.
See Twitter Thread Here

This weekend sees the start of the Tory Party Conference. With a parliamentary vote to block a recess, its rather scuppered plans for the rest of the conference. Johnson's planned speech at the conference clashes with PMQ so he may well not attend the Commons.

Expect the conference to be.... Er... Inflammatory...

The Scots and Welsh both had to vote twice to get devolution, in 1979 and 1997.

My question came out of desperation and answering the question where people say "why should Leave have to win twice, it's not best of 3, yada yada"

The answer to that is to point out that the 2016 referendum was not the original one but the second one. Why was it OK for leavers to demand that remain have to win twice in order for us to keep the status quo but massively out of line for remainers to ask leave to win twice in order to embark on massive change and upheavel

The Labour option Just comes across not so much confusing, as people have said, it sounds awkward/complicated. Because lots of people are now so fatigued by Brexit.

upheaval - my cursor started doing something crazy and I couldn't change the spelling.

"You can't put on options like Norway ++, Canada+ etc because these deals have not been negotiated"

But in that sense the WA Is not a "deal" either. It only deals with leaving not with the future relationship, which is outlined in the political declaration but not in detail. Even if we accept the WA, we still have to negotiate a deal, of which we have at present only the vague outlines.

Ah but pretzels that would be presupposing you were speaking to rational people.

Great Pointless Statement of the Day:-

This is why we shouldn't have referendums. Voters expect to be able to choose out of yes/no but most can't be bothered to think what it means beyond that in any depth. 🦄

Yes - that's why the W.A is such a dreadful idea - because it is a blind brexit. That's why I refuse to support it under any circumstance. My point though is that you can;t just stick Norway ++ on a ballot for people to vote for without first checking that a) all these people know what that means and b) the things you think you are offering are actually on offer.
I don't mean negotiating the actual deal - I mean taking the basic step of checking what the EU/ EEA will allow. E.G Norway have decided they don;t want us in EFTA because we're such a pain. Sop Norway ++ will require a third pillar, will the EU grant it? what will we get? How will it far against Most favoured nation clauses that other countries have etc. You can't run a meaningful referendum on those options until all that is (at least preliminarily) sorted.
We can vote on the W.A and have a blind brexit tomorrow because it is already on offer. That's the difference.

It's just not possible to solve, is it?

This is why No Deal can be dressed up (a wolf in sheep's clothing) as being so simple.

The choices are No Deal vs Revoke vs WA
where WA allows any future deal between Canada- and Norway ++

No future trade deal can be made binding in advance of being negotiated, because we cannot bind future Parliaments in the Uk or the EU

• and trade negotiations usually take several years, unless one side just rolls over

If Labour with / without other parties wins a GE and approves the WA, either with or without a ref,
then it needs to complete the negotiations for the future trade deal
AND have the HoC approve the deal
all within one term of office

This means no time to piss about, because all of that needs to be completed within a 5 year term, to be sure it actually happens

So Brexit is either No Deal, or via the WA

WA is a blind Brexit - unless, as above, a new govt approves a basic future deal within its term of office
The add-ons can be negotiated later, if need be

It's all so stupid!

Norway, Canada, Switzerland etc are all theoretically accessible via the WA.

It's still stupid!

The problem is, we are like the big-shot footballer who has angled for a move to another club, bad-mouthing our current team, and now we cannot agree terms, we think we can just walk back into that dressing room and be accepted?

Who was that footballer recently who wanted to leave his club recently (probably a few years ago actually) drove all the way to his "new club" on transfer deadline day only to be turned away at the barrier and had to go home to his old club with his tail between his legs? Think Harry Rednapp was involved somewhere (surprise!)

Oh yeah it was Peter Odemwingie; West Brom to QPR.

This is all why I think a 2nd ref would be better before a GE. In the event of a leave win the W.A could be passed along with all the necessary bills and then we have a GE where the country gets to decide who will be running the trade negotiations - they have mandate for their brexit through the GE and they then get a 5 year crack at getting it done.
If we vote remain they can revoke and go into a GE and we get decide who puts the country back together.

This way the hardest of hard brexits is still an option if the votes are there (vote leave - vote tory/ BXP). A soft brexit is there (vote leave, vote labour lib dem) and remain is there (vote remain - end of story). No one is disenfranchised.

I do realise, though, the pressure a GNU would be under to hold up under the length of time this would take. But if we have a GE first and come back with another hung parliament (likely) we're still not any further along. But even if we get a hung parliament after a second leave win - they're still further along than they are right now because at least we would have left and be transitioning.

The problem is, we are like the big-shot footballer who has angled for a move to another club, bad-mouthing our current team, and now we cannot agree terms, we think we can just walk back into that dressing room and be accepted?

I think if JC walked in, offered a full and heartfelt apology and placed all the blame squarely where it belongs then the EU would get over it. This is completely a tory disaster. Once the tories are out of power everyone can move forward. 'It wasn't us - it was a hard right coup and we put them back in their box, apologies for the inconvenience - let's all work closer together to make sure none of us have to go through this again' should not be too contentious for anyone but the hard right to swallow.

pretzels If you mean Revoke, there are not the votes for it in the HoC

About 20-30 of the Rebel Alliance MPs are Leavers who are against No Deal, but would refuse to support Revoke
Reports are that they would also refuse to support a PV, at least before winning a GE with that in the manifesto

The GNU, if it ever happens before a GE, would be a v fragile creation that is likely intended only to last a few days:
just enough to request & receive an extension, then call a GE on a date before the extension ends

But, of course, a GE still has to have a campaign and all kinds of things can happen in that time and will be about all kinds of issues. Unless they go for the fabled coupon election.

Incidentally, does anyone know what the shortest time has been between calling an election and it happening?

I don't understand BCF? I'm not an advocate of straight revoke. I mean what I say. Second ref. If that came out as remain then there would be the votes for revoke in parliament. Because everyone who had voted to agree the second ref (so there would be votes for that) would then vote to uphold that result.
Unless for some reason you think they wouldn't? they upheld the ref last time whether they agreed with or not.

I also didn't say I thought this is what would happen -I said I believe this is the most sensible course of action. What I think is sensible if people just pull their heads out of their arses and act in the best interest of the country, and whether or not those people will do that, are not the same thing. I even stated I knew that it would be tricky because of the precarious situation of a GNU. I know all the reasons why this is highly unlikely. It doesn't stop me from thinking it is the best course of action, though.

I mean what I say. Second ref. If that came out as remain then there would be the votes for revoke in parliament. Because everyone who had voted to agree the second ref (so there would be votes for that) would then vote to uphold that result.
Unless for some reason you think they wouldn't? they upheld the ref last time whether they agreed with or not.

In fact - all this isn't even necessary is it? In the event of a remain win the PM would revoke - no votes by parliament technically needed.

OK, i'm going to give up trying to catch up or i'll never post anything!
There just may be some further investigation going on into that article @BigChocFrenzy posted on the corporate lobbying..., a certain paper should be doing something with it shortly at any rate

Anyway I haven't even looked at the news myself today so I have little to add, other than I did like @lonelyplanetmum's idea of Scotland pp'ing for an extension that would be amazing!

Pretzels imo, there is not the slightest chance that the Rebel Alliance could form a GNU that could survive for the months needed to organise and hold a PV

They need to replace the PM, get an extension and immediately call a GE

Then a PV will happen if Labour win, or get C&S from Remain parties

If the Tories win, it sucks, but we would have to accept that is democracy:
Leavers would have won the 2016 referendum, become the largest party in the 2017 GE and then won the 2019 GE

Wouldn’t it depend on the type of referendum that was held. If advisory then it wouldn’t be a legal decision, so would need a vote in Parliament, which MPs could vote for as they’d have the referendum to back it up. (At the moment they only have their personal judgement as to what’s best for the country even though that should be enough in our representative democracy...) Not sure what the ECJ said about it in the Wightman case, but if Parliament had to approve PM’s power to notify A50 in Miller1, then shouldn’t they also have to in order to revoke?

The only way a GNU would work is if another 50 or so Tories rebel and join it, to get a PV