Brexit mega thread part 13: All eyes on Ireland

[SerendipityJane]

With the Windsor framework up & running, and the DUP having a "you could set your calendar by it" hissy fit, but Irish unification refusing to keep it's head down, what next in the long running sage of UK vs. the real world ?

Slightly OT, but the ongoing spat in the middle east seems to have some interesting fall out in Brexit Britain. Certainly it seems to have suddenly spiked the Tory guns on the dog-whistle "anti semitic" trope they throw at Labour as an exercise in debate-stifling. Because right now, Britons dead thanks to Israel, that starts to look like a positive.

Also just when you though the Tories had no more faults to split over, Alan Duncan gets while Suella is insisting there is nothing to see here, move on.

Sadly, all we can do is watch.

In Holland, Wilder's party PVV have now decided to dump Nexit.

As far as the EU was (and is) concerned, the two purposes of Brexit was to ensure the best deal for the EU and ensure no other member state felt "-exit" was in any way a good idea.

Last year trade with the EU hit its highest level since 2008, making up over half of total trade.

The US remained the UK’s single largest trade partner, but it came in far behind the EU as a whole.

https://www.cityam.com/uk-post-brexit-trade-clear-shift-india-ties-show-little-growth-and-china-declines/

I wonder what could possibly be causing this?

@SerendipityJane Where's that written down then ?

The parties present what they consider to be the best way forward for the country as a whole. Key phrase is "as a whole". There will never be a policy which pleases everyone.

People who are interested then give their opinion by voting in elections or referendums. The party, or coalition of parties, who win the most seats then becomes government.

In the case of a single subject vote which has a yes or no answer, like the referendums held in 1975 and 2016, it is a simple case of which received the most votes.

If MPs can ignore how people vote, what is the point of elections or referendums?

You're conflating the two things. Referenda can be used to gauge public opinion and do not have to be legally binding. Once elected, MP's can vote however they want, there is no legal impediment to say otherwise.

@VimtoVimto The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what they think in their faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain.

This is why 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017. If MPs can ignore a vote, then voters can ignore MPs and any of the laws they have made. So, it becomes the law of the jungle and those with the most effective weapons have the last word, even of they are in the minority. Hence the majority vote has to be accepted.

Voters were given the opportunity to cancel Brexit in the 2019 general election by voting for Jo Swinson, but they did not.

@Jason118 Referenda can be used to gauge public opinion and do not have to be legally binding.

The 2016 referendum was binding as specified in the leaflet sent to all UK households by the remain campaign headed by a remaim supporting PM, David Cameron.

Once elected, MP's can vote however they want, there is no legal impediment to say otherwise.

So, why did 498 MPs vote to trigger Article 50?

@HannibalHeyes So as they were all insistent that we were going to have a deal, wouldn't it have been behoven to them to actually have tried to work out what kind of a deal might be either desireable or maybe even practical? That would have been very easy to do with no reference at all to Article 50.

You need to watch the 4 April 2019 episode of Question Time. The Irish MEP, Mairead McGuiness, confirmed that discussions on the withdrawal agreement could not commence until the UK had triggered Article 50.

Likewise, the UK was not allowed to enter into discussion on trade deals until after the UK had left the EU on 1 January 2021 after the transition period. So, knowing what leave may look like was not possible until after 31 December 2020.

@borntobequiet The idea that one wouldn’t at least do some planning for it is bonkers.

That question needs to be answered by the remain supporting UK PM, David Cameron, as he put the referendum on the table. The timeline was:

Jan 2013 - Cameron promises a referendum if he won the 2015 election
May 2015 - Cameron wins the election
June 2016 - The UK voted to leave the EU

So, the remain supporter Cameron had over three years to make a plan for a leave vote, but did not. The reason is simple. He was ultra confident that a remain result was a certainty.

Are you hard of thinking?

"You need to watch the 4 April 2019 episode of Question Time. The Irish MEP, Mairead McGuiness, confirmed that discussions on the withdrawal agreement could not commence until the UK had triggered Article 50."

This has already been answered umpteen times, as you well know. We weren't talking about discussions with the EU, we were talking about the government actually sitting down and working out what it wanted and what it was willing to compromise on.

Please stop being so fucking stupid.

Here are more benefits...

Oh dear @GlobeTrotter2000 missing the point, as ever. Politically binding isn't legally binding and lots of MP's vote for something because they can. Not sure what you are pulling me up on, but hey ho.

@Jason118

The leaflet sent to all UK households made the statement:

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

In simple terms, offer + acceptance = contract

Nowhere in the leaflet was it specified the referendum was advisory. Had the government ignored the referendum they would be in breach of contract.

UK laws are made by Parliament. So, when 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50, it became law for the UK to leave the EU.

This may have been overturned in the 2019 general election if people voted for Jo Swinson as her policy was revoke Article 50. However, that too would have to be voted on by MPs.

@HannibalHeyes we were talking about the government actually sitting down and working out what it wanted and what it was willing to compromise on.

Article 50 states that the member who chose to the leave the EU would either leave with a deal or leave without a deal. So, no obligation on the EU or the UK to compromise on anything as the default outcome is no deal.

UK error was allowing a remain supprting PM to lead the negotiations. Thankfully, the law that arose from Gina Miller's efforts to thwart Brexit, made the deal signed by T May null and void as it had not been passed through Parliament. Hence, it was illegal.

...

Once more for you @GlobeTrotter2000 since you seem to be having a bit of trouble:

Oh dear @GlobeTrotter2000 missing the point, as ever. Politically binding isn't legally binding and lots of MP's vote for something because they can. Not sure what you are pulling me up on, but hey ho.

Doesn’t exhaust me @HannibalHeyes as I don’t read his or her posts

Saves a lot of time

@Jason118

498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 and 114 voted against. That totals 612 from 650. I guess the other 38 either abstained or spoilt their vote?

If MPs were convinced that Brexit would be bad for the UK, why was the vote not the other way round with a majority vote against trigger of Article 50?

@prettybird

Some of your posts from the past have been funny. Examples I remember were along the lines:

As soon as a member makes a payment to the EU, they are a net contributor even if the money they have received from the EU is a much higher figure.

Brexit should only have been allowed if all UK members voted to leave.

This is disingenuous to say the least. MPs should act in the interest of the country, not in the interests of their donors or what the editors of the Mail/Sun/Express want.

A LibDem government was never going to happen.

How on earth can anyone think that Brexit was or is a good idea. The whole thing has and continues to be a shambles from the start. Cameron never expected to win the 2015 election and was relying on the LibDems to protect him from the ERG wingnuts.

We haven't had the "I remember your posts" for a while, they seem to be aimed at bird name posters.....

Didn't mean to quote you prettybird but I agree with the advice.

The trouble with that is that their misinformations then go unchallenged, and any non-regular followers of these threads might actually think it's saying something valid...