Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Teaboy]

Just away from the pantomime of Parliament. Somebody is continuing to brief Kuenssberg on a chance of a deal over the horizon.

What if... Boris Johnson does get a Brexit deal?

What happens next if the PM gets a Brexit deal?

It raises an interesting question. The DUP do seem to be softening towards a deal and hardening (in a roundabout way) towards no deal. Presumably because they fear a mauling at the next election in the event of a messy crash out.

The timetable is still there to get a deal of sorts back to Parliament. Is there a possibility it could pass? There does seem to be a route through albeit an unlikely one. The other thing is would Bercow allow another vote given we are still in the same Parliament as of yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Just away from the pantomime of Parliament. Somebody is continuing to brief Kuenssberg on a chance of a deal over the horizon.

What if... Boris Johnson does get a Brexit deal?

What happens next if the PM gets a Brexit deal?

It raises an interesting question. The DUP do seem to be softening towards a deal and hardening (in a roundabout way) towards no deal. Presumably because they fear a mauling at the next election in the event of a messy crash out.

The timetable is still there to get a deal of sorts back to Parliament. Is there a possibility it could pass? There does seem to be a route through albeit an unlikely one. The other thing is would Bercow allow another vote given we are still in the same Parliament as of yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court?

I wouldn't put money on it, but there's a chance he could get changes to the deal, which the DUP would accept, which brings over the ERG lot. The EU is sick of all this, as much as we are, so it's possible that they will say - it's this deal or no deal, we will not extend again.

That I think would ensure it gets passed.

Bercow couldn't stop a vote on it, because it would be a new deal, very slightly different to the May deal, but enough.

 

[8ball]

I wouldn't put money on it, but there's a chance he could get changes to the deal, which the DUP would accept, which brings over the ERG lot. The EU is sick of all this, as much as we are, so it's possible that they will say - it's this deal or no deal, we will not extend again.

That I think would ensure it gets passed.

Bercow couldn't stop a vote on it, because it would be a new deal, very slightly different to the May deal, but enough.

“Slightly different” in that we keep the part about being the EU’s bitch for an unspecified amount of time?

 

[treelover]

brian blessed

geoffrey cox

can you tell the difference?

for gods sake, did you hear his voice, it booms!

 

[tommers]

“Slightly different” in that we keep the part about being the EU’s bitch for an unspecified amount of time?

That's always going to be the case. Well unless they collapse, which is a possibility I suppose.

 

[8ball]

That's always going to be the case. Well unless they collapse, which is a possibility I suppose.

Yeah, but there are obvious issues with getting that one through.

 

[butchersapron]

I don’t really understand all of it either & would be grateful if it was explained. I’m sure this is probably my ignorance - not a politics geek just following the discussion with interest...

To expand:

The post starts with an allusion to Mao's motto Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; therefore the situation is excellent. It then goes on to outline that the centrists are forced to adopt a position that is utterly reliant on the theory of parliamentary sovereignty most forcefully and influentially (in constitutional politics)develped by Powell. Powell used this position to aggressively reject the EU and any outside impositions on parliament. So there's that that little irony to kick it off. They then go on to immediately undermine this by forcing a judgement from the supreme court that explicitly recognises that it is for the courts to recognise when parliamentary sovereignty can justifiably be imposed upon or restricted - and that is when a proper prorogation process has been followed - (to make clear, i am not referring to the judgement and the cases put by either side - i could not care less about them - this is what the court admitted in a supporting paragraph where it defined exactly why prorogation is not a parliamentary procedure, it is an imposition from outside by the govt and that courts now have the power to decide on whether it was done properly or not. The imposition on parliamentary sovereignty is recognised as legitimate). That is what this decision establishes for the first time - what i refer to as "Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy " - an 10 year old supreme court attempting, in a time of disorder, to mark out and expand the limits of its own powers and necessarily against that of the other sections of the state at the same time.

So this is the soft-leftists and the liberals relying - inconsistently and blatantly with a political objective in mind - setting their stall on the age old idea of good old british parliamentary sovereignty. Against this, those on the more tory leave section are just as unfaithfully relying on the idea of popular sovereignty - that is, that parliamentary sovereignty derives from and depends on continued popular assent that can be withdrawn at any point and revert back to 'the people'. Every single tory knows how dangerous and unconservative this is and that it is in no way genuinely meant or believed beyond achieving their own counter-objective. That it in fact, opens up ideas and vistas that they have spent hundreds of years stamping down - hand in hand with the liberals in fact.

Historically, govts were always very - centrally even - concerned with reproducing legitimation, of hegemony - that is of securing ongoing popular assent via a range of non-violent methods. That's one of the states roles in keeping wider capitalist relations going and one of the factors behind previous class compromises (say post-war social-democracy for example). The key political one since the from-above 1688 settlement in this country is that of political equality, expressed through representative democracy practised as parliamentary sovereignty - the democratic ideology. There might be rampant economic inequality, ongoing authoritarianism, all sorts of illegal state activity etc but we are all democratically equal. Now we have both sides in this charade kicking at the supporting struts of that structure - essentially saying that no, that's not how things work, or have to work. That's the glimpse of sunshine in this disorder - that the old ways are dissolving in front of our eyes. The danger that i mention is that this is happening in a situation where the two sides to the argument above (and by that i want to be clear that this is not inter-class conflict, it's a brothers war) are both utterly committed to the pursuit, to the acceleration of the neo-liberalism that's wiping away the conditions that gave that democratic myth any social purchase. That is the old collective traditions of economic and political representation, of collective provision of health education and housing and so on. The very things that saved these people above and their interests in the past are now their immediate targets for destruction - on every single level, politically, economically, ideologically.

Capital doesn't like this sort of situation. In the past it has reacted to such breakdowns and legitimation crisis' in very nasty ways.

 

[redsquirrel]

I think Dominic Cummings might agree with some people here!

Where some of us would 'agree' with Cummings is in putting the political before the legal and/or technical.

What we have seen over the last 30 or so years is the liberal left attempting to defend themselves behind the law, to reduce political disputes to technical disputes. We can see this in the defence of the EU, a reliance on EU law (the law of a neo-liberal institution) to protect workers, rather than the power of workers themselves. Rather than looking for a strong workers movement to force a Labour Party to provide concessions we have the focus on electing an LP behind who's legs workers can hide. Rather than a political confutation with the hard right we have the invoking of the state to oppose racism and fascism.

And the results of this retreat from politics, is now that much of the left is no longer able to mount any political fight, all it has left is some flimsy pieces of paper to wave. At this very moment I'm feeling the effect of this retreat from politics in my workplace, my union is currently balloting for industrial action and we probably aren't going to make the 50% turnout because our union no longer conceives of itself as a political body organising to take the fight to bosses but rather an insurance policy plus a couple of seats on some pointless committees.

The fact is that the technocratic and legalistic avenues that some want to use are themselves the enemy. Pro-working class anti-fascism/anti-racism is going to have to be made in opposition to liberal/state anti-fascism. Measures to increase equality and economic democracy are going to have to "damage the economy" and in the face of the law (see private schools already threatening to use the law against the proposals the LP made this week). The retreat from politics has only led to increasing inequality and a diminishing power of labour, we need to re-embrace politics and that necessarily means attacking the institutions - the state, parliament, the courts, the EU - that rely and create the diminution of politics.

We are currently seeing liberal institutions coming under greater pressure than they have been for some time, the actions of the working class are creating cracks in neo-liberal political system (like the weakening of the democratic myths butchersapron mentioned). To argue, as some are, that rather than embracing these opportunities socialists/communists/anarchists should support the state, the law, the EU is crazy. None of which means, contra littlebabyjesus's smears, that myself, BA, Smokeandsteam etc are supporting the Daily Express, Cummings, the Brexit Party etc (unlike him and other we can both walk and chew gum).

EDIT: Just to add it's been really good having someone who's not a P&P regular posting fakeplasticgirl so I really hope you stick around.

 

[kabbes]

To expand:

The post starts with an allusion to Mao's motto Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; therefore the situation is excellent. It then goes on to outline that the centrists are forced to adopt a position that is utterly reliant on the theory of parliamentary sovereignty most forcefully and influentially (in constitutional politics). Powell used this position to aggressively reject the EU and any outside impositions on parliament. So there's that that little irony to kick it off. They then go on to immediately undermine this by forcing a judgement from the supreme court that explicitly recognises that it is for the courts to recognise when parliamentary sovereignty can justifiably be imposed upon or restricted - and that is when a proper prorogation process has been followed - (to make clear, i am not referring to the judgement and the cases put by either side - i could not care less about them - this is what the court admitted in a supporting paragraph where it defined exactly why prorogation is not a parliamentary procedure, it is an imposition from outside by the govt and that courts now have the power to decide on whether it was done properly or not. The imposition on parliamentary sovereignty is recognised as legitimate). That is what this decision establishes for the first time - what i refer to as "Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy " - an 10 year old supreme court attempting, in a time of disorder, to mark out and expand the limits of its own powers and necessarily against that of the other sections of the state at the same time.

So this is the soft-leftists and the liberals relying - inconsistently and blatantly with a political objective in mind - setting their stall on the age old idea of good old british parliamentary sovereignty. Against this, those on the more tory leave section are just as unfaithfully relying on the idea of popular sovereignty - that is, that parliamentary sovereignty derives from and depends on continued popular assent that can be withdrawn at any point and revert back to 'the people'. Every single tory knows how dangerous and unconservative this is and that it is in no way genuinely meant or believed beyond achieving their own counter-objective. That it in fact, opens up ideas and vistas that they have spent hundreds of years stamping down - hand in hand with the liberals in fact.

Historically, govts were always very - centrally even - concerned with reproducing legitimation, of hegemony - that is of securing ongoing popular assent via a range of non-violent methods. That's one of the states roles in keeping wider capitalist relations going and one of the factors behind previous class compromises (say post-war social-democracy for example). The key political one since the from-above 1688 settlement in this country is that of political equality, expressed through representative democracy practised as parliamentary sovereignty - the democratic ideology. There might be rampant economic inequality, ongoing authoritarianism, all sorts of illegal state activity etc but we are all democratically equal. Now we have both sides in this charade kicking at the supporting struts of that structure - essentially saying that no, that's not how things work, or have to work. That's the glimpse of sunshine in this disorder - that the old ways are dissolving in front of our eyes. The danger that i mention is that this is happening in a situation where the two sides to the argument above (and by that i want to be clear that this is not inter-class conflict, it's a brothers war) are both utterly committed to the pursuit, to the acceleration of the neo-liberalism that's wiping away the conditions that gave that democratic myth any social purchase. That is the old collective traditions of economic and political representation, of collective provision of health education and housing and so on. The very things that saved these people above and their interests in the past are now their immediate targets for destruction - on every single level, politically, economically, ideologically.

Capital doesn't like this sort of situation. In the past it has reacted to such breakdowns and legitimation crisis' in very nasty ways.

Bravo.

Well, teuchter ? Does that satisfy you?

 

[Cid]

To expand:

The post starts with an allusion to Mao's motto Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; therefore the situation is excellent. It then goes on to outline that the centrists are forced to adopt a position that is utterly reliant on the theory of parliamentary sovereignty most forcefully and influentially (in constitutional politics). Powell used this position to aggressively reject the EU and any outside impositions on parliament. So there's that that little irony to kick it off. They then go on to immediately undermine this by forcing a judgement from the supreme court that explicitly recognises that it is for the courts to recognise when parliamentary sovereignty can justifiably be imposed upon or restricted - and that is when a proper prorogation process has been followed - (to make clear, i am not referring to the judgement and the cases put by either side - i could not care less about them - this is what the court admitted in a supporting paragraph where it defined exactly why prorogation is not a parliamentary procedure, it is an imposition from outside by the govt and that courts now have the power to decide on whether it was done properly or not. The imposition on parliamentary sovereignty is recognised as legitimate). That is what this decision establishes for the first time - what i refer to as "Different sections of the actual state striking out and trying to claim autonomy " - an 10 year old supreme court attempting, in a time of disorder, to mark out and expand the limits of its own powers and necessarily against that of the other sections of the state at the same time.

Yeah, it doesn't do that though.

The judgement says that a prorogation of parliament (not just this time - but when done properly) is inherently an imposition on parliament:

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

All they're doing is saying that prorogation is something that, by convention, isn't a power exercised by parliament... The effect of that is to say that prorogation is an external imposition, but that is simply interpreting the law as it stands. For it to define the limits of parliamentary sovereignty as a principle, as well as the simple practical operation of parliament, they would have to add that they think parliament can't change the conventions relating to prorogation, they don't do that. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is maintained because parliament could turn around tomorrow and say 'right, the situation is ridiculous, from now on we'll use a bill presented in the HoC conventionally at <x> date to prorogue'.

Within the axioms of parliamentary democracy the court is doing exactly what it's supposed to do, interpreting the law as it stands. And yes, parliament must operate according to those procedures, up until the point a party with a sufficient majority is able to pass legislation through the HoC that changes them. No effect on the principle of sovereignty.

 

[butchersapron]

I haven't said there that the judgement limits parliamentary sovereignty, i said that in it's supporting remarks it recognised that a situation in which parliamentary sovereignty can be justly limited exists - exactly by a correctly proceeded prorogation. And that the courts are now the arbiters of if the correct procedures have been followed. I haven't said a single thing about the courts verdict - which could have been this this prorogation was legal for all the difference it would make to what i'm saying - and pointed this out.

 

[Cid]

I haven't said there that the judgement limits parliamentary sovereignty, i said that in it's supporting remarks it recognised that a situation in which parliamentary sovereignty can be justly limited exists - exactly by a correctly proceeded prorogation. And that the courts are now the arbiters of if the correct procedures have been followed. I haven't said a single thing about the courts verdict - which could have been this this prorogation was legal for all the difference it would make to what i'm saying - and pointed this out.

Just to be clear, exactly which bit of the supporting remarks are you talking about?

 

[teuchter]

Bravo.

Well, teuchter ? Does that satisfy you?

Yes, I now have a much clearer understanding of what is being said.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

butchersapron interesting, that’s for elaborating.
Edit: ditto redsquirrel

 

[Cid]

I think I agree with the broader point incidentally, just not with the specific effect of that bit of the judgment (I can't be arsed to find exactly where this is, so am going to just call it the judgment).

 

[Sprocket.]

I wonder if Johnson has chosen a ditch yet?

 

[Raheem]

I wonder if Johnson has chosen a ditch yet?

A flat in Shore-ditch, apparently.

 

[Duncan2]

I wonder if Johnson has chosen a ditch yet?

An unlikely working-class hero for sure.

 

[Ted Striker]

 

[Dogsauce]

View attachment 185117

Haven’t we heard a bit too much from experts?

 

[brogdale]

If Johnson did harbour any intent to get a deal II through the commons with Labour support, that prospect has surely now receded.
Can’t really imagine that any PLP would now go through the lobby with him.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

If Johnson did harbour any intent to get a deal II through the commons with Labour support, that prospect has surely now receded.
Can’t really imagine that any PLP would now go through the lobby with him.

The entire process now seems to have been reduced to ‘feelings’ and language. Some MPs have even claim that this is what’s driving the deep hatred of the political class. It’s really not.

If the May deal comes back on 19 October, with single market alignment, I think it would be passed. The alternative is a brexit election which even the dogs on the street know the outcome of.

A deal, where we ‘leave’ but remain shackled to all extents and purposes to the dying carcass of EU neoliberalism, would probably suffice if remainers don’t want to press the nuclear button.

There would still need to be a GE but instead of one conducted in the fury of betrayal it would be a ‘what now’ election which suits Labour much better.

The alternative - VONC Johnson, install Harman/Clarke/Beckett/even Corbyn and call ref 2 has two major flaws: 1. They would probably lose it and 2. Whatever the result they will need to stand before the people in a GE. Far too rich for the blood of MPs

 

[killer b]

The alternative is a brexit election which even the dogs on the street know the outcome of.

I asked a dog on the street, it said 'woof' and tried to fuck my leg.

 

[Yossarian]

I asked a dog on the street, it said 'woof' and tried to fuck my leg.

It didn't have floppy blonde hair, did it?

 

[Pickman's model]

The entire process now seems to have been reduced to ‘feelings’ and language. Some MPs have even claim that this is what’s driving the deep hatred of the political class. It’s really not.

If the May deal comes back on 19 October, with single market alignment, I think it would be passed. The alternative is a brexit election which even the dogs on the street know the outcome of.

A deal, where we ‘leave’ but remain shackled to all extents and purposes to the dying carcass of EU neoliberalism, would probably suffice if remainers don’t want to press the nuclear button.

There would still need to be a GE but instead of one conducted in the fury of betrayal it would be a ‘what now’ election which suits Labour much better.

The alternative - VONC Johnson, install Harman/Clarke/Beckett/even Corbyn and call ref 2 has two major flaws: 1. They would probably lose it and 2. Whatever the result they will need to stand before the people in a GE. Far too rich for the blood of MPs

you're having a laugh

there is *no way* on god's green earth that parliament could accept membership of the single market, with its exclusion on negotiating trade deals with other countries. and especially *no way* the current prime minister could seriously propose it as it would make a fucking nonsense of everything he has been saying on the subject - see eg this

so it's going to be some sort of brexit election.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If the May deal comes back on 19 October, with single market alignment, I think it would be passed. The alternative is a brexit election which even the dogs on the street know the outcome of.

I'm not so sure it would be passed now. Labour are increasingly committed to an extension and a second ref on any deal. That means voting no regardless of the nature of the deal. Meanwhile, the tory exiles have little incentive to vote for any deal of any kind now, and the nats, greens and libdems will vote against any deal.

I agree with you that pushing for a 'soft' leave along the lines of Common Market 2, aligning the UK with Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, and then getting it, could have been good for Labour. I'm a bit surprised more in labour haven't been pushing for this as the sensible 'grown-up' compromise solution that 'honours' (hate that word in this context - 'reflects' would be better) the referendum, and pushing back hard against anyone claiming it didn't do that. Labour made a very bad mistake by initially going along with the false notion that the referendum result meant the requirement for new immigration controls, something they are now rowing back from. A clear 'we will go back to EFTA' (keeping 'the common market that we voted for in 1975' but rowing back further integration - one of the many strands of reasons given for voting leave by older people) right from the start might have put Labour in a much stronger position now.

 

[Pickman's model]

A clear 'we will go back to EFTA' (keeping 'the common market that we voted for in 1975' but rowing back further integration - one of the many strands of reasons given for voting leave by older people) right from the start might have put Labour in a much stronger position now.

this would be the auld efta which involves taking eu laws but not having a voice in determining them. that's not happening.

what's going to happen is that we're going to remain within the european union and your paltry arguments will be as wind.

 

[brogdale]

The entire process now seems to have been reduced to ‘feelings’ and language. Some MPs have even claim that this is what’s driving the deep hatred of the political class. It’s really not.

If the May deal comes back on 19 October, with single market alignment, I think it would be passed. The alternative is a brexit election which even the dogs on the street know the outcome of.

A deal, where we ‘leave’ but remain shackled to all extents and purposes to the dying carcass of EU neoliberalism, would probably suffice if remainers don’t want to press the nuclear button.

There would still need to be a GE but instead of one conducted in the fury of betrayal it would be a ‘what now’ election which suits Labour much better.

The alternative - VONC Johnson, install Harman/Clarke/Beckett/even Corbyn and call ref 2 has two major flaws: 1. They would probably lose it and 2. Whatever the result they will need to stand before the people in a GE. Far too rich for the blood of MPs

Unsurprising that the issue of Brexit should reduce to 'feelings & language'; what else is it?

There's zero chance of Johnson getting a BRINO through his own revolutionary guard.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

you're having a laugh

there is *no way* on god's green earth that parliament could accept membership of the single market, with its exclusion on negotiating trade deals with other countries. and especially *no way* the current prime minister could seriously propose it as it would make a fucking nonsense of everything he has been saying on the subject - see eg this
View attachment 185139
so it's going to be some sort of brexit election.

You make two assumptions: 1. That Johnson means what he says. His final calculation on a deal or not will be this: does this win me an election. 2. That MPs and the opposition, despite their piss and bluster, think they can win a brexit GE. They can’t. Labour want and need an election about ‘what now’

Finally, ’the Prize’ for the HoC has always been ‘frictionless trade with the EU’. In other words remain part of the bloc and accept the rules. Any deal which offers this will, given the alternatives, attract support from MPs across the parties

 

[Pickman's model]

You make two assumptions: 1. That Johnson means what he says. His final calculation is this: does this win me an election. 2. That MPs and the opposition, despite their piss and bluster, think they can win a brexit GE. They can’t.

Finally, ’the Prize’ for the HoC has always been ‘frictionless trade with the EU’. In other words remain part of the bloc and accept the rules. Any deal which offers this will, given the alternatives, attract support from MPs across the parties

that's utter utter tosh, i'm sorry to say. there is no way at all that such a deal could be seriously proposed after all the talk of vassal states and so on. perhaps boris johnson could bring himself to ignore his rhetoric on the hulk, on vassal states and so on and shamelessly commend it to the house. but even if he could, he'd be toast the same day. it'd be signing his political death warrant, his party will never ever go for that. and nor will the opposition, not when the end game is in sight, the end game which results in the uk remaining in the eu.