#politicslive

[RingoMcCartney]

He allowed an amendment which sought to give the UK the right to terminate the Irish border backstop without the agreement of the EU (it lost 600 to 24) and another noting the Irish border backstop is temporary and calls for the UK Government to give notice on January 1 2022 that it will terminate the Withdrawal Treaty if it becomes clear that the EU will not agree to remove the backstop was also selected.

The issue with the sunset clause is that MPs would have been voting to approve a deal that hadn't actually been offered.

And yet, and yet. Mr Bercow allowed the Grieve amendment to a motion that had not yet been voted and in doing so pre-empted it's outcome.

The issue with the sunset clause amendment for Bercow is that it had the potential to scupper the establishment and political class's aim of thwarting brexit.

[Lancasterclaret]

It isn't though is it?

You are stretching that as far as its possible to stretch it

[RingoMcCartney]

I’m not the one avoiding answering questions. But the ‘trolling’ thing is your standard response when you don’t have one so I guess I shouldn’t expect any to be forthcoming.

I've pointed out that Bercows actions were seen as constitutionally significant and also having a massive impact on the course of Brexit.

The only avoiding going on here is on your part. On reality

Troll along. Keep on being wrong.

[RingoMcCartney]

I can play the pedant as well - JRT report “poorest households on less than 20k, unemployed, low skilled etc. You wrote “That the majority of those minimum waged, temporary contracted, zero hours workers”

Where is your evidence, what is your source, that those two groups are the same? You haven’t made a presumption have you?

That would be like me drawing the conclusion that it was old, poor and stupid people that were the main drivers behind Leave

No that would be you sneering at people simply because they have a different world view to you.

There's a clue in the sentence-

"The poorest households, with incomes of less than £20,000 per year, were much more likely to support leaving the EU than the wealthiest households"

And

"Groups vulnerable to poverty were more likely to support Brexit."

However, if the JRT saying the poorest of society voted Leave then it's obvious you simply won't accept facts.

Talking about facts. Where's the source that backs up your claim that -

"The majority of those workers didn't get a vote"

You've had ample opportunity.....

TICK TOCK. TICK TOCK.....

[martin_p]

I've pointed out that Bercows actions were seen as constitutionally significant and also having a massive impact on the course of Brexit.

The only avoiding going on here is on your part. On reality

Troll along. Keep on being wrong.

You haven’t outlined what that ‘massive impact is’. As I said yesterday, everyone else involved in Brexit has moved on having realised it hasn’t had a big impact. There’s only you still banging on about it.

[martin_p]

However, if the JRT saying the poorest of society voted Leave then it's obvious you simply won't accept facts.

It isn’t saying that, you need to read your sources properly. There can be no definitive evidence of who voted what as there are no stats to link votes cast to social and economic grouping.

[Burnley Ace]

No that would be you sneering at people simply because they have a different world view to you.

There's a clue in the sentence-

"The poorest households, with incomes of less than £20,000 per year, were much more likely to support leaving the EU than the wealthiest households"

And

"Groups vulnerable to poverty were more likely to support Brexit."

However, if the JRT saying the poorest of society voted Leave then it's obvious you simply won't accept facts.

Talking about facts. Where's the source that backs up your claim that -

"The majority of those workers didn't get a vote"

You've had ample opportunity.....

TICK TOCK. TICK TOCK.....

So you don’t have a source for your statement but you are taking “clues” and making a presumption from the JRT report. I ask again what is your direct source?

The report you mention states “Groups vulnerable to poverty were more likely to support Brexit. Age, income and education matter, though it is educational inequality that was the strongest driver”.
What do you think that means? Let’s look at the “clues” Age probably means old, income means poor and educational inequality means not as well educated as those that support remain. Are you now claiming this report is wrong?

Now if we are going tick tock - where is your authority that the referendum was legally binding on the Government? Tick tock

Where is your source that the UK isn’t a Representative Democracy? Tick tock

Under what Act did the legislative body abrogate it’s legal obligation to determine whether the U.K. leaves the EU? Tick tock

[RingoMcCartney]

You haven’t outlined what that ‘massive impact is’. As I said yesterday, everyone else involved in Brexit has moved on having realised it hasn’t had a big impact. There’s only you still banging on about it.

But your still here, replying, being wrong, pig headed, and sounding silly!

The Speaker of the House, handed MPs a chance to change the Brexit timetable - and in doing so broke with centuries of historic precedent, and parliamentary procedural protocol. He ignored the advice of the clerks and has repeatedly refused to publish the advice they gave. A first as far as I'm aware.

It means that the way the government goes about its business, going forward could be altered forever from this point on. Due to his actions. If that's NOT a pivotal moment in British political history, I don't know what is.

John Bercow- probably the first speaker of the house to be denied a peerage.

Martin p - definitely not the last UTC poster to be proven wrong by Lord Ringo of McCartney

[Rick_Muller]

But your still here, replying, being wrong, pig headed, and sounding silly!

Martin p - definitely not the last UTC poster to be proven wrong by Lord Ringo of McCartney

I wouldn't be so certain about who is sounding silly Ringo...

[RingoMcCartney]

So you don’t have a source for your statement but you are taking “clues” and making a presumption from the JRT report. I ask again what is your direct source?

The report you mention states “Groups vulnerable to poverty were more likely to support Brexit. Age, income and education matter, though it is educational inequality that was the strongest driver”.
What do you think that means? Let’s look at the “clues” Age probably means old, income means poor and educational inequality means not as well educated as those that support remain. Are you now claiming this report is wrong?

Now if we are going tick tock - where is your authority that the referendum was legally binding on the Government? Tick tock

Where is your source that the UK isn’t a Representative Democracy? Tick tock

Under what Act did the legislative body abrogate it’s legal obligation to determine whether the U.K. leaves the EU? Tick tock

Times up!

No source.

No reply.........

[martin_p]

But your still here, replying, being wrong, pig headed, and sounding silly!

The Speaker of the House, handed MPs a chance to change the Brexit timetable - and in doing so broke with centuries of historic precedent, and parliamentary procedural protocol. He ignored the advice of the clerks and has repeatedly refused to publish the advice they gave. A first as far as I'm aware.

It means that the way the government goes about its business, going forward could be altered forever from this point on. Due to his actions. If that's NOT a pivotal moment in British political history, I don't know what is.

John Bercow- probably the first speaker of the house to be denied a peerage.

Martin p - definitely not the last UTC poster to be proven wrong by Lord Ringo of McCartney

Ah it’s the old goal post moving trick. You were claiming he’d be pivotal in Brexit. Please explain what has changed and the pivotal difference it will make to the outcome. Fourth time of asking, still no answer.

[Burnley Ace]

Times up!

No source.

No reply.........

Whilst we are at it Tick tock you haven’t been able to answer
do you disagree with his differentiation of “amendment” and “debate” or is it his interpretation of “forthwith” that you find so pivotal?
Tick tock
So that’s four points you can’t answer.

My source is ONS statistics based on nationality of workers in industry sectors that have the highest proportion of zero hours or minimum wage contracts and looking for “clues” contained therein. I will concede that I have no single source and my statement that the majority of those workers didn’t vote was based on the anecdotal evidence that they are EU nationals over here stealing our jobs

Now back to your sources, come on tick tock!!

[Greenmile]

I asked the first question. You try giving me the first answer.

I'll go second.

So go on, Explain why a referendum, advisory or not, is not an example of direct democracy.?

Wrong again Ringo. You were asked to explain the concept of sovereignty (in your mind) in post 919. You didn't ask me why an advisory referendum isn't direct democracy until post 933.

(dsr will be along in a bit to explain that it's just my opinion that 933 is a bigger number than 919, and that I'm insufferably smug and arrogant to think that my opinion is more valid than that of someone who insists that 919 is, in fact, the larger number.)

[Greenmile]

I said,

"those minimum waged, temporary contracted, zero hours workers"


You said,

"The majority of those workers didn't get a vote"

You have still not provided a source.

There is Parliamentary sovereignty. When parliament delegated the decision whether or not to leave the European Union. It passed sovereignty to the People.

Supply and demand. Those who have been least able to afford it, have been forced to join the race to the bottom on wages. That was Ed milibands claim in 2015.

The former CEO of marks and Spencer admitted, in what was a pretty referendum own goal, that if we limit immigration , employers will have to more to its workers.

You ask,

"what happens when we have full employment, when we don’t have the skilled workforce to take up these roles,"

Then we have a skills based immigration policy that matches the nations needs and requirements with potential foreign workers. Something like New Zealand, Australia and Canada all seem to have pretty successfully.

No it didn’t.

[dsr]

Wrong again Ringo. You were asked to explain the concept of sovereignty (in your mind) in post 919. You didn't ask me why an advisory referendum isn't direct democracy until post 933.

(dsr will be along in a bit to explain that it's just my opinion that 933 is a bigger number than 919, and that I'm insufferably smug and arrogant to think that my opinion is more valid than that of someone who insists that 919 is, in fact, the larger number.)

I thought Remainers, as a rule, weren't fond of straw man arguments?

[Greenmile]

I thought Remainers, as a rule, weren't fond of straw man arguments?

..and I can see brexiters aren’t big on humour, if you’re anything to go by.

There’s a kernel of truth in my straw man argument though. You spent some time earlier trying to pass off hard facts as just opinions, because they are inconvenient to your stance. Why should numbers be any different?

[aggi]

And yet, and yet. Mr Bercow allowed the Grieve amendment to a motion that had not yet been voted and in doing so pre-empted it's outcome.

The issue with the sunset clause amendment for Bercow is that it had the potential to scupper the establishment and political class's aim of thwarting brexit.

Can you explain exactly how the sunset clause would have stopped Brexit being thwarted?

Given that it would have resulted in us turning up to the EU saying that the HoC had passed a deal they hadn't actually offered so wouldn't really have progressed things.

Admittedly I'm not really sure who is on which side anymore in this conspiracy. I assume the ERG are pro-remain as they voted against May's deal? May voting for it and her refusal to countenance extending Article 50 makes her pro-leave?

[dsr]

..and I can see brexiters aren’t big on humour, if you’re anything to go by.

There’s a kernel of truth in my straw man argument though. You spent some time earlier trying to pass off hard facts as just opinions, because they are inconvenient to your stance. Why should numbers be any different?

Can't think how I missed the humour. Perhaps put a smiley in next time?

As for the truth of your argument, it's not so much the legal niceties of the "advisory" term, it's the implication that it was never intended to be acted upon. I accept that no government can be bound by its predecessor and that there was no automatic mechanism in the referendum bill that meant a government had to take specific action to stop it; but it wasn't "advisory". It was intended to be acted on.

It would be a more accurate representation to point out that nothing a politician says under any circumstance can be considered to be a commitment. It's all "advisory", in that sense, from the manifesto to a sworn statement in the House of Commons.

[nil_desperandum]

If anyone is interested, here's the relevant document (re; referenda) from the Parliament Consultation committee.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... 9/9909.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's a long read, but the relevant paragraph is 223.

223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion. (Para 197)

[Lancasterclaret]

That doesn't help at all, because it only says it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.

"Difficult" does not mean impossible

"Decisive" was not what the result was

And there is a mention in there for "public opinion" - Public opinion in 2016 is different to 2019, by quite some margin (according to the various polls and the trends)

[aggi]

The thoughts of someone who knows a lot more about this than any of us (even Ringo), Ivan Rogers the former British ambassador to the EU, make interesting reading as always:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/10 ... 0325213184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

I wouldn't be so certain about who is sounding silly Ringo...

I'm sure its better to be sounding silly by choice. Where as with Martin p and his mutton headed attitude, any choice is removed!

[martin_p]

I'm sure its better to be sounding silly by choice. Where as with Martin p and his mutton headed attitude, any choice is removed!

There’s a series a questions awaiting your answer, why not concentrate on those.

[Greenmile]

Can't think how I missed the humour. Perhaps put a smiley in next time?

As for the truth of your argument, it's not so much the legal niceties of the "advisory" term, it's the implication that it was never intended to be acted upon. I accept that no government can be bound by its predecessor and that there was no automatic mechanism in the referendum bill that meant a government had to take specific action to stop it; but it wasn't "advisory". It was intended to be acted on.

It would be a more accurate representation to point out that nothing a politician says under any circumstance can be considered to be a commitment. It's all "advisory", in that sense, from the manifesto to a sworn statement in the House of Commons.

Yes it was.

(unless "advisory" means something different from advisory).

(It's a fairly irrelevant point to the greater discussion to be fair, but I'm not against being petty now and again, and I won't stand for lying.)

[nil_desperandum]

That doesn't help at all, because it only says it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.

"Difficult" does not mean impossible

"Decisive" was not what the result was

And there is a mention in there for "public opinion" - Public opinion in 2016 is different to 2019, by quite some margin (according to the various polls and the trends)

No it's not particularly helpful, but there are important conclusions that one could draw:
1. Any referendum can only be advisory
2. It refers to ignoring a "decisive" expression of public opinion, and this suggests that if the result isn't "decisive" then the government has some discretion about how / if it implements the result.
It would therefore suggest to me that according to the wording of this paragraph, the 2016 result was not decisive, and so the government in implementing the result should take into account the 48%. i.e. it should from the outset have sought to achieve consensus rather than allowing an extremist minority group (the ERG) to try to dictate the rules. Had May set up a cross-party working group and also allowed input from various sectors of society, (e.g. business leaders, Unions etc.), then we might have had a deal by now.

[biggles]

Deal? Schmeal! whatever deal is announced, by whoever, can be changed at a moments notice - whenever the time is right and both parties agree to it. up to this point any deal already mentioned is merely an option and it's flexible. wouldn't surprise me if there are other deals available that haven't even been mentioned. what the chance of TM's deal getting through the HOC with a little tweaking, eg the backstop? i imagine that if it looked like we would leave with a no-deal [which the EU would welcome as much as the UK would] then something could be done to ensure a deal is reached.

[aggi]

Looks like we underestimated David Davis' negotiating skills. He's managed to sort out one deal, his £3,000 an hour consultancy job at JCB https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... _david.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although he should have taken some tips from Boris who got his £10k for nothing
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... _boris.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[martin_p]

Looks like we underestimated David Davis' negotiating skills. He's managed to sort out one deal, his £3,000 an hour consultancy job at JCB https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... _david.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although he should have taken some tips from Boris who got his £10k for nothing
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... _boris.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he’d have got the 10k for nothing but he let the treasonous remoaner Olly Robins do the negotiating for him.

[BleedingClaret]

No it's not particularly helpful, but there are important conclusions that one could draw:
1. Any referendum can only be advisory
2. It refers to ignoring a "decisive" expression of public opinion, and this suggests that if the result isn't "decisive" then the government has some discretion about how / if it implements the result.
It would therefore suggest to me that according to the wording of this paragraph, the 2016 result was not decisive, and so the government in implementing the result should take into account the 48%. i.e. it should from the outset have sought to achieve consensus rather than allowing an extremist minority group (the ERG) to try to dictate the rules. Had May set up a cross-party working group and also allowed input from various sectors of society, (e.g. business leaders, Unions etc.), then we might have had a deal by now.

The 2017 UK General Election allowed The Conservatives 42.3% along with the 0.9% DUP to form a Parliament and have full control if they all vote in line whilst Labour with 40% effectively have no power.
Previously 36% of the vote gave the Tories full control
Don't start me on 4 million UKIP to 1 million or so SNP and the seats discrepancy that resulted in.
First past the post is what we have for General Elections and is how the EU Referendum was also put to us.

[Lancasterclaret]

I have a new favourite twitter poll question

This one just popped up on my feed

"DO YOU BELIEVE Parliament should be PROROGUED in order to take back control by The People from rogue Remain MPs and prevent quisling Remaniac Globalist Stooge MPs from subverting the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY VOTE OF BREXIT and to ensure the NO DEAL The British People voted for?"

I don't think your da is taking the divorce well!

[Spiral]

aggi mentioned Sir Ivan Rodgers further up the thread. He delivered a speech on Brexit at the invitation of an institute at the University of Liverpool just over a month ago. He breaks everything down in a reasonable, factual and piecemeal way. He obviously has great clarity on the subject of international diplomacy and trade relations, and I'd recommend watching it regardless of political persuasion as he totally avoids politicking, slogans etc. etc. which might otherwise grate.

Here's a video (it's an hour, but it's worth a watch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnwhfdZmydw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here's a full transcript which is a little quicker:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiger76]

No it's not particularly helpful, but there are important conclusions that one could draw:
1. Any referendum can only be advisory
2. It refers to ignoring a "decisive" expression of public opinion, and this suggests that if the result isn't "decisive" then the government has some discretion about how / if it implements the result.
It would therefore suggest to me that according to the wording of this paragraph, the 2016 result was not decisive, and so the government in implementing the result should take into account the 48%. i.e. it should from the outset have sought to achieve consensus rather than allowing an extremist minority group (the ERG) to try to dictate the rules. Had May set up a cross-party working group and also allowed input from various sectors of society, (e.g. business leaders, Unions etc.), then we might have had a deal by now.

Many brexitters would agree with this,any decision made by parliament should have had cross-party support,it's May's pandering to the ERG which has led to the current mess,and only now at the 11th hour is she attempting to reach across the chamber.

[Devils_Advocate]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46976834

I think this messageboard could do with the NewsGaurd warning plug-in being added to DSR's posts

[AndrewJB]

aggi mentioned Sir Ivan Rodgers further up the thread. He delivered a speech on Brexit at the invitation of an institute at the University of Liverpool just over a month ago. He breaks everything down in a reasonable, factual and piecemeal way. He obviously has great clarity on the subject of international diplomacy and trade relations, and I'd recommend watching it regardless of political persuasion as he totally avoids politicking, slogans etc. etc. which might otherwise grate.

Here's a video (it's an hour, but it's worth a watch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnwhfdZmydw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here's a full transcript which is a little quicker:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for posting that. I haven’t read it all yet, but what I have is very interesting.

[bfccrazy]

FDEB4C72-71B6-437E-9FC6-79563E65D929.gif (309.28 KiB) Viewed 2219 times

[dsr]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46976834

I think this messageboard could do with the NewsGaurd warning plug-in being added to DSR's posts

Why? Are you incapable of using your own mental or online filter? I would have thought that since it is your raison d'etre to look for controversial or non-controversial views so that you can oppose them, you would want to see everybody's.

[dsr]

The 2017 UK General Election allowed The Conservatives 42.3% along with the 0.9% DUP to form a Parliament and have full control if they all vote in line whilst Labour with 40% effectively have no power.
Previously 36% of the vote gave the Tories full control
Don't start me on 4 million UKIP to 1 million or so SNP and the seats discrepancy that resulted in.
First past the post is what we have for General Elections and is how the EU Referendum was also put to us.

When there are only 2 options, you can have first past the post, single transferrable vote, list system, alternative vote system, any form of PR that you like. You will always get the same result.

[BleedingClaret]

When there are only 2 options, you can have first past the post, single transferrable vote, list system, alternative vote system, any form of PR that you like. You will always get the same result.

Fair point
To leave it is then

[Greenmile]

Why? Are you incapable of using your own mental or online filter? I would have thought that since it is your raison d'etre to look for controversial or non-controversial views so that you can oppose them, you would want to see everybody's.

Didn’t read the link? Didn’t understand the link? Deliberately misrepresenting the content of the link? I’m really not sure.

The Newsguard plugin doesn’t filter out any content - it just warns you that certain sites generally fail to meet “basic standards of accuracy and accountability”

[summitclaret]

It is looking like the erg and Dup will vote for Andrew Murrision's amendment that the backstop would expire by 31 dec 2021. If so this would mean that we could be very near to May's deal getting approved.

Now over to Bercow. Will this amendment to be voted on first or will he choose one that can frustrate or stop Brexit. Any reasonable person would choose the former.

[martin_p]

It is looking like the erg and Dup will vote for Andrew Murrision's amendment that the backstop would expire by 31 dec 2021. If so this would mean that we could be very near to May's deal getting approved.

Now over to Bercow. Will this amendment to be voted on first or will he choose one that can frustrate or stop Brexit. Any reasonable person would choose the former.

That’s not what’s on offer from the EU. They’d have to agree it as well and all the noises coming from the EU at the moment is that the backstop cannot be changed.

[Mala591]

That’s not what’s on offer from the EU. They’d have to agree it as well and all the noises coming from the EU at the moment is that the backstop cannot be changed.

The EU are (at last) beginning to realise that the backstop will have to be changed for the withdrawal agreement to get through parliament. They will find a way (a fudge) to insert an expiry date on it and then May's deal (the only deal) will be approved and we will swiftly move into the trade deal negotiation phase.

[summitclaret]

I think they would have to reconsider if it was voted through. Indefinite nature is totally unreasonable we can't agree to it in any circumstances. I'd rather remain for now as any trade deal agreed would be one-sided.

If they won't budge if we voted for Murrision's amendment, then leave would win a second referendum imo as they EU would have been shown up for what it is. Better to start again in the basis that this time we are leaving after 2 years if they don't be reasonable. That would get us a decent deal imo and quicker than otherwise.

[Burnley Ace]

The backstop comes into effect if there is no deal agreed during the transition period- this remember is the deal that according to Lilley should take 10 minutes to agree or to others “the easiest in the world”

However what happens if the backstop has to be activated? We stay in a customs union and the Single market but we don’t pay anything and don’t have to accept Free Movement- what. Is the problem and why do people think th EU will want to trap us in that position?

[summitclaret]

You sure about that? Its not a brexit that is worth giving up all of the current plusses for.

Anyway the Dup won't vote for anything with an unlimited backstop and may bring the gov down if a deal is agreed with such a backstop. Something which all of the tory remain rebels seem to be forgetting.

[Lancasterclaret]

The EU have said the backstop is non-negotiable. But they have no intention of extending it anymore than they have to.

Why?

Because it gives a part of the EU (NI) a massive advantage over other members of the EU.

Strange how the ERG never mention that bit isn't it?

[summitclaret]

It is and always was a tool to frustrate Brexit.

[Lancasterclaret]

It isn't.

Its pretty basic summit

[summitclaret]

Anything imposed on the UK that means one part is treated differently to the rest is not acceptable and an open goal for the SNP. It won't happen. The EU will blink first if the HOC does not interfere. Once a deal is agreed a short extension of A50 will follow to allow enabling legislation.

[Lancasterclaret]

In two years, the EU hasn't blinked.

They are not going to blink. Its not them who need to blink.

This is on us. It is our decision. We have to make one that gives the EU some wiggle room. Demanding that the back stop has a short (and more importantly unrealistic) time scale helps no one except the internal wranglings of the Conservative Party (Just how many times does this keep having to be mentioned?)