The Brexit process

[chilango]

If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then of course they'll vote to block it.

They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.

Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 94896
(the sun front page)

isn't guyana a former british colony?

 

[bimble]

isn't guyana a former british colony?

Yeah and i think she's just old enough to have been born when it still was.

 

[DotCommunist]

of course they'll vote to block it.

even if that will clearly lead to losing their 60k a year position come tnext GE? Self interest must come to the fore here, surely. Its not like the majority of them have principles that aren't bought n sold

 

[chilango]

even if that will clearly lead to losing their 60k a year position come tnext GE? Self interest must come to the fore here, surely. Its not like the majority of them have principles that aren't bought n sold

I'm sure they'll reckon that not everyone who voted out in the referendum will vote (either at all or tactically on Brexit) in a GE. There's probably some data that would lend credibility to such a view.

They have a record of focussing on the handful of swing, centre ground, voters.

Of course they might wrong. But I dont think it's unlikely that they'd think like this.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't mean we stay in the EU, it just means May doesn't get to unilaterally decide on all the terms of exit.

The ruling is about triggering article 50 - who can do it essentially. It does not concern the content of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular participation. The idea she

 

[brogdale]

If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then of course they'll vote to block it.

They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.

Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.

I can certainly envisage capital lobbying for a form of Leave that doesn't affect their trading arrangements.

 

[andysays]

isn't guyana a former british colony?

Yeah and i think she's just old enough to have been born when it still was.

For 10 bonus points, name the former British MP (now dead) who was born in Guyana

 

[brogdale]

The ruling is about triggering article 50 - who can di it essentially. It does not concern the content of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular participation. The idea she

Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm sure they'll reckon that not everyone who voted out in the referendum will vote (either at all or tactically on Brexit) in a GE. There's probably some data that would lend credibility to such a view.

They have a record of focussing on the handful of swing, centre ground, voters.

Of course they might wrong. But I dont think it's unlikely that they'd think like this.

I think you're bang on the money. There's a plenty that will be looking for any opportunity to block any exit. Or modify it into some leave in words only.

 

[Pickman's model]

For 10 bonus points, name the former British MP (now dead) who was born in Guyana

bernie grant. met him once. see my book, 'brushes with greatness', for more details.

 

[Pickman's model]

Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.

and even the outcome of the negotiations

 

[butchersapron]

If enough MPs "believe" that they "need" to block Brexit "in the national interest", "for economic growth" etc. etc. i.e if capital puts the squeeze on them, then of course they'll vote to block it.

They'll, reasonably enough, be banking on the belief that none of the people that voted for Brexit will actually do anything to enforce that decision should Parliament block it.

Interesting times could get a whole lot more interesting.

They'll need to depose their party leader(s then - maybe even form a new well funded pro-remain party. Given that almost the entirety of capital across all sectors, all institutions of the state, the rich, the powerful, the liberals, the elite - everyone but a majority of the population - supports this position it cannot be entirely dismissed as a possibility. I don't think anything like that will happen though. If the appeal loses there will be a crappy shitty debate in the commons and we'll all abandon our own powers - with many anarchists to the fore it appears - to the state and capital in a pathetic democratic spectacle. Then an aggressively whipped vote will trigger article 50.

 

[andysays]

The ruling is about triggering article 50 - who can di it essentially. It does not concern the content of any negotiations post-triggering. It doesn't give MPs any extra say in the latter - and it certainly doesn't offer any route to increased popular participation. The idea she

It's also interesting (for certain limited values of interesting, obvs) that the judgement yesterday seems to be on this basis

the three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU. They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.

That suggests that their view is that people's rights are changed when Art50 is triggered, not (or not only) when the final deal is agreed, which in turn suggests (contrary to the opinion you posted above) that Art50 isn't reversible.

There is still at least the possibility that this will all have be decided in Luxembourg after all

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

isn't guyana a former british colony?

So was Australia.

And America.

So Murdoch's covered

 

[Pickman's model]

So was Australia.

And America.

So Murdoch's covered

covered in shit

 

[butchersapron]

Though the ruling doesn't concern the content of the negotiation, by insisting that debate precedes triggering, it opens up the prospect of amendments that could affect the outcome of the negotiating position.

Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?

God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.

 

[redsquirrel]

God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.

They're all that stands between us and fascism!

 

[chilango]

They'll need to depose their party leader(s then - maybe even form a new well funded pro-remain party. Given that almost the entirety of capital across all sectors, all institutions of the state, the rich, the powerful, the liberals, the elite - everyone but a majority of the population - supports this position it cannot be entirely dismissed as a possibility. I don't think anything like that will happen though. If the appeal loses there will be a crappy shitty debate in the commons and we'll all abandon our own powers - with many anarchists to the fore it appears - to the state and capital in a pathetic democratic spectacle. Then an aggressively whipped vote will trigger article 50.

Yeah I don't know if it will happen.

...but, as I've said for some time, if the politicians feel the need to ignore the referendum outcome they can and will, and get away with it too.

All this shenanigans just adds extra smoke and mirrors.

 

[chilango]

Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?

God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.

It's okay, there's a "progressive alliance " being formed. Hadn't you heard?

 

[DotCommunist]

if the lib dems re-coalesce as the party of remain which they want to do then I'm blaming every innie

 

[brogdale]

Parliamentary debates don't mean a single thing in the the negotiating room. Is the negotiating team or May's cabinet really unaware of the positions of the MPs today? What woulkd an amendment on a simple vote to trigger look like anyway?

God this is so demoralising - all this guff about democracy and rights, and MPs and the law.

Agreed, but May's parliamentary position is vulnerable to rebellion/opposition. In order to get the simple consent for trigger she may be exposed to leverage that extracts concessions regarding the following process.

 

[butchersapron]

It's also interesting (for certain limited values of interesting, obvs) that the judgement yesterday seems to be on this basis



That suggests that their view is that people's rights are changed when Art50 is triggered, not (or not only) when the final deal is agreed, which in turn suggests (contrary to the opinion you posted above) that Art50 isn't reversible.

There is still at least the possibility that this will all have be decided in Luxembourg after all

What opinion i posted about reversibility?

The ruling doesn't appear to have been on those grounds that you quote - and if it is will be overturned in the supreme court because it's clear that any loss of rights - specifically the right to EU citizenship, the basis for the case - doesn't start with the triggering of article 50 but at the completion of the process. The actual basis appeared to simply be that the crown has no right to use prerogative powers to alter domestic law.

 

[DotCommunist]

Sounds like the Express believes it was the driving force behind Brexit.

what would they have done if Di was alive and voted remain?

 

[bimble]

Some people - on twitter- are already firing off letters to their local MPs, saying 'remember your duty to your constituents who overwhelmingly voted remain' (lambeth and streatham for instance).

 

[brogdale]

what would they have done if Di was alive and voted remain?

Snowmageddon story.

 

[andysays]

What opinion i posted about reversibility?

The article that you posted yesterday in answer to my question about the ECJ included the author's opinion on reversibility. I wasn't trying to suggest it was your opinion, so apologies if it came across that way.

The ruling doesn't appear to have been on those grounds that you quote - and if it is will be overturned in the supreme court because it's clear that any loss of rights - specifically the right to EU citizenship, the basis for the case - doesn't start with the triggering of article 50 but at the completion of the process. The actual basis appeared to simply be that the crown has no right to use prerogative powers to alter domestic law.

I haven't read the full ruling (and I'm not a lawyer, obviosly) I'm just going on my understanding of what the BBC are saying, which could well be wrong

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

It makes far more sense, IMO, that Parliament should have to have final approval on any final deal...

And parliament says NO. Then what?

 

[krtek a houby]

meanwhile, in the Express..
View attachment 94892

Nothing like a bit of patriotic hyperbole. Always good to invoke the racist, mass murdering, anti striking bastard.

 

[Pickman's model]

Some people - on twitter- are already firing off letters to their local MPs, saying 'remember your duty to your constituents who overwhelmingly voted remain' (lambeth and streatham for instance).

perhaps they should be firing off letters and not tweets.