Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[nil_desperandum]

Trex you are forgetting that the hardcore ERG and the DUP have the power to end the May government. Now that Corbyn is losing his power the latter are far more likely to do it. So the solution will be one that the hardcore vote for. The only way to leave now and move on is for Cox to say that the backtrap is not permanent.
.

I've asked this question before.
How does bringing down the May government help the ERG and particularly the DUP, (for whom - if there were to be a snap election it could mean the end of the line)?
The numbers in Parliament will remain the same and there still won't be a majority for leaving any time soon with "no deal"
And if bringing down May results in a Gen Election then Brexit would have to be delayed because of the timetable.
Additionally, unless there was a rapid and potentially divisive "deselection process" in the Tory Party a snap election would mean that most of the current Tory MPs would be returned, so there would still only be about 30 / 60 hardline ERG members.
Then there's the risk to the DUP that they could quite easily no longer hold the balance of power.
And finally, who really knows what the outcome of a Gen Election would be. It would be totally unpredictable - as last time, particularly as Farage's new Brexit party might well field candidates, and there would be a lot of tactical voting to try to unseat "brexit" candidates, which was v effective last time.
Incidentally: what has the permanence of the backstop got to do with Cox? It's part of the Withdrawal Agreement and only the EU can amend it.

[Lancasterclaret]

So the DUP and the ERG would bring down Mays government to bring in a Lab one which has pledged a 2nd ref?

I'm not sure you have thought that one through

[CrosspoolClarets]

As I have long said, the bulk of the ERG are moderate.

The Sun reporting today that JRM is softening to May’s deal, and only about 20 of the ERG really want a No Deal exit. I think that’s fair.

Thus the “bring down the government” element would be relating to those 20 and if they deem May’s Brexit to be no Brexit at all and a risk worth taking. If 5-10 of them vote against in a no confidence motion, she is gone, they then gamble Corbyn and No Brexit in a general election under a new leader.

It wouldn’t be my choice, I think we have to leave then under the relative stability of the Withdrawal Agreement then get a general election and a bigger majority one way or the other. But I can see why some Tories think it worth it now. There are about 3 layers of protection to it all going wrong in their eyes:

1. Corbyn doesn’t get voted in due to his worsening ratings.
2. The EU doesn’t let us extend A50 anyway.
3. The public get a new vote but vote to Leave.

[Lancasterclaret]

Pestons show last night summed it up

The ERG are a paper tiger. They are backsliding quicker the "Dyche Out" brigade on here as the horrific realisation dawns on them that its "Mays Deal" or "No Brexit".

I have no clue what they have been talking about in their meetings for the last couple of years, but reality has finally arrived at ERG HQ.

[Lancasterclaret]

And this one is for Jakub

This is the reality of what you voted for mate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lowbankclaret]

In poker parlance the government just folded before the final hand.

The clue was in the Costa amendment, an important card was played early.

The ERG only has 20-60 votes, it can't prevent an extension and it can't force a no-deal.

Theresa May's plan won't pass because neither will no-deal so it's back to Europe to beg for an extension, the EU will say it has to be for two years.

In that time there will be another vote which remain will win easily.

Brexit is dead dead dead.

At least the leave voters of Burnley have a while to save up to storm Parliament in a fit of right-wing rage.

By my reckoning 50p of income support put aside every week and the likes of Wrongo should be able to afford the trip to London by the time the whole thing is officially canceled.

19 Billion (and counting) wasted on this crap.

In other good news, the privately funded case against Boris Johnson, for lying on a bus (alleged offence of misconduct in public office), was taken to Westminster Court a few days ago...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BuMRYM0FeMn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An interesting take on events so far. Which could be the outcome.

I am not convinced a 2nd referendum result would be remain. But that’s for some time in the future possibly.

[Lancasterclaret]

Won't happen now I think

Mays Deal will pass next week I think.

But if it doesn't, then I suspect Brexit is dead.

[KateR]

wouldn't trust the Guardian with anything they write, along with quite a few other news outlets and TV stations, the same is true for Pro Brexit also.

I said a few posts back I think there is more than a 50% chance of GE after the mid March votes have finished with the obvious result in a delay to Brexit.

I know if I was in May's position I believe right now I would call one, but obviously only after these 3 votes are in and turn out to be the way I believe they will fall. She/Tories will need to be very careful on what they hang there hat on for a GE though.

[Lancasterclaret]

You don't have to trust the paper Kate, just read the figures released by the government.

You can't argue with the facts.

Non-EU immigration will replace the EU immigration.

I don't think that is what the likes of Jakub had in mind when he voted for Brexit.

[Mala591]

I agree with Lancs that May's deal will probably scrape through. Mainly due to the support of Labour MPs in leave constituencies who now realise they have to stop 'messing about' and take their democratic responsibilities (and their future political careers) seriously.

[Lowbankclaret]

Yesterday Julie Cooper voted against the gov in the main vote.
Voted for labours amendment
And did not vote on the the no deal amendment.

[KateR]

I obviously don't agree with LC and think it will fail again, however I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Immigration to the UK will see significant changes in my opinion if we leave in a downward trend, not just EU immigration either. If we end up staying and being part of the EU due to a second referendum then immigration will increase for sure from the EU. Along with many other poor changes to affect the UK in the future, as we will be under the thrall of EU, read Germany/France

[Lancasterclaret]

Again, the immigration into this country will be governed by need.

At the moment, as EU migration drops (not surprisingly), non-EU migration rises.

You are going to have vote in politicians who tell you they will drop immigration regardless of need if that is what you want.

[aggi]

And this one is for Jakub

This is the reality of what you voted for mate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As an added bonus, non-EU citizens, as a group, cost the UK economy unlike EU immigrants who are net contributors.

[AndyClaret]

So the DUP and the ERG would bring down Mays government to bring in a Lab one which has pledged a 2nd ref?

I'm not sure you have thought that one through

Why would it bring in labour? They would take their chances in an election with a brexit leader.

[aggi]

Interesting (and good) from the Norway Sovereign Wealth fund

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1101022036531523585" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Course, its an economic forecast and we ignore them right?

I wonder if, in part, this is a gamble that Brexit doesn't happen? That would be the quickest return on this investment.

[nil_desperandum]

Why would it bring in labour? They would take their chances in an election with a brexit leader.

Well May tried it once ........
It most likely wouldn't bring in Labour, but it could easily reduce the Tories further and end up in an alliance of the other parties, so I doubt they'd risk it. The whole brexit thing has been about holding the Tory Party together, so why risk it now?
And remember - May has said she won't lead the Tories into the next GENERAL election but would lead them into a snap election, and the Tories can't dislodge her for nearly 12 months, unless she voluntarily goes.
As we all know now, "she's a bloody difficult woman" (K. Clarke).

[Lancasterclaret]

Why would it bring in labour? They would take their chances in an election with a brexit leader.

Ahead of an actual Brexit? They would risk that? No chance

I wonder if, in part, this is a gamble that Brexit doesn't happen? That would be the quickest return on this investment.

Could be, of course the real sign of that would be the funds that Brexiteers have substantial investments in start doing that as well.

[CrosspoolClarets]

As an added bonus, non-EU citizens, as a group, cost the UK economy unlike EU immigrants who are net contributors.

Absolutely right.

But when you break that down into sectors and / or wage levels there are net givers and takers in both the non-EU and EU groups. I believe the official Migration Advisory Committee report suggested a figure, £20k, something like that.

That's why there needs to be control - only a fool wants people to come in who are net takers, worsening the lives of all of us by reducing GDP per capita. But only a fool would resist a Polish or Indian Hospital Consultant coming in too.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I wonder if, in part, this is a gamble that Brexit doesn't happen? That would be the quickest return on this investment.

That's not what they claim (without wanting to start another Honda debate about whether the truth is being told).

They said ""With our time horizon, which is 30 years plus, current political discussions do not change our view of the situation."

Put simply, they have more faith in the UK than many of our own MPs and citizens do. Looking at it from a level headed, dispassionate position tends to do that.

[Lancasterclaret]

Course, with a thirty year span, no one is doubting that.

Course, I'll be 76. My kids will be 41 and 40.

What if it takes thirty years Crosspool?

Thats two generations struggling for reasons that are clear to you but not so clear to others.

Don't want to reopen old debates, but if it takes 30 years (or even 10, or 20), then Brexit is most definitely not worth it.

[Jakubclaret]

And this one is for Jakub

This is the reality of what you voted for mate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guardian how neutral, that should make greenmile & a few of the others happy, why bother to increase the minimum wage for the indigenous people when you can take advantage of foreign labour & increase profitability, & conceal it with a cloak of respectability & cry xenophobia when questioned.

[Lancasterclaret]

Figures are there mate.

What Greenmile and others have been telling you since Day one.

[Jakubclaret]

Figures are there mate.

What Greenmile and others have been telling you since Day one.

Are you really sure about that? Because day 1 i presume you mean the day after the referendum result, not 12mths ago.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you really sure about that? Because day 1 i presume you mean the day after the referendum result, not 12mths ago.

I'm incapable of arguing against the point being made, but i can dispute what "day 1" means. Yeah, i'm gonna do that. That is totally winning for me.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm taking Day One to mean when you first started posting about this.

Either way, the people who you voted for are going to do you up like a kipper over stuff like this.

[Jakubclaret]

I'm taking Day One to mean when you first started posting about this.

Either way, the people who you voted for are going to do you up like a kipper over stuff like this.

Well that's what you initially stated, so i guess you are not really sure, well you can't be, if you have to rely on me to correct you.

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh dear.

I think you may be about to start what is now known as "The Ringo Gambit"

Good luck with that!

[Jakubclaret]

I'm incapable of arguing against the point being made, but i can dispute what "day 1" means. Yeah, i'm gonna do that. That is totally winning for me.

No matey, some of us have grown up & have better things to do with there time than argue the toss all day & night, remind you of anyone.

[Imploding Turtle]

No matey, some of us have grown up & have better things to do with there time than argue the toss all day & night, remind you of anyone.

You're arguing about what "day 1" means.

[dsr]

I was giving you the benefit the doubt but really it’s just your ignorance. You have even answered the question yourself. They voted AFTER THE FIRST DEBATE to move it to the next stage, they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act.

Lack of research or your lack of understanding, who knows but the record is there for everyone to see, there’s no point trying to argue otherwise. You made a little mistake in not expressing yourself properly, move on Ringo I’m sure I’ll spot another one soon.

Third readings (when the second reading hasbeen uncontested) are a formality. They can't propose amendments, it's a simple yes or no. Labour were in favour of the bill at second reading (when the serious principle of yes or no is discussed) and didn't change their mind for the third reading. Dennis Skinner was the only Labour MP who voted against.

[RingoMcCartney]

not heard that one since primary school, well done for the trip down memory lane

Primary school , a "trip down memory lane"?

Surely recent past?

[nil_desperandum]

Absolutely right.

But when you break that down into sectors and / or wage levels there are net givers and takers in both the non-EU and EU groups. I believe the official Migration Advisory Committee report suggested a figure, £20k, something like that.

That's why there needs to be control - only a fool wants people to come in who are net takers, worsening the lives of all of us by reducing GDP per capita. But only a fool would resist a Polish or Indian Hospital Consultant coming in too.

Which takes us back to question 1 - which no one on this thread has so far attempted to answer:
When we leave the EU and seek to do new trade deals: which country (worth dealing with) is going to offer us a deal in which we expect free movement of skilled labour (who they have educated and trained) from there into the UK but refuses entry to others who are less skilled?
How stupid do you think these other countries are? And don't forget it's the UK who won't have any trade deals and will be needing them, so our bargaining power won't be strong.
Can you really see India accepting that?

[Lancasterclaret]

Law v "No Deal" Brexit

Greive knocks it out of the park

https://twitter.com/A50Challenge/status ... 5077482496" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

I was giving you the benefit the doubt but really it’s just your ignorance. You have even answered the question yourself. They voted AFTER THE FIRST DEBATE to move it to the next stage, they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act.

Lack of research or your lack of understanding, who knows but the record is there for everyone to see, there’s no point trying to argue otherwise. You made a little mistake in not expressing yourself properly, move on Ringo I’m sure I’ll spot another one soon.

So I "made a mistake in expressing myself properly"

Your mistake was not comprehending a straight forward question.

Your mistake was relying on poor researching skills when you Googled and jumped on an incomplete piece of information and failed to go into finer detail.


My post 2359 simply asks the question - " did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum."

 Yes or no?

There was no caveat no small print specifying whether or not "they DIDN’T VOTE to make it an Act" or not. As you're desperately belatedly trying to say there was.

No.Just a straight forward . "did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum?

As the the BBCs Chris Mason, political correspondent confirmed.

"You don't need a doctorate in mathematics to work out this was a Commons majority of rather a lot.

With 650 MPs in the House of Commons, persuading 84% of them to vote the same way is quite something."

Look at what Chris Mason said here Burnley Not so Ace-

"MPs have OVERWHELMINGLY backed plans for a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.

MPs voted by 544 to 53 (nearly all SNP) in favour of the motion"


That answers my very simple and straight forward question. -

" did the vast majority of labour MPs vote to have an eu referendum."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When I asked that question, you said "no".

But in the post I quote above, you utterly contradict yourself and make the admission, for all to see that , and I quote, ". They voted AFTER THE FIRST DEBATE ,"

Its there in black and white! In true shooting yourself in the foot , Burnley not so Ace, style. You're subconsciously admitting and simultaneously proving you were wrong.

Forget your unpunctual provisos . Forget your clinging, too late to the party to help you save face, stipulations.

The vast majority of labour MPs did, indeed, vote to have an EU referendum.

[RingoMcCartney]

Third readings (when the second reading hasbeen uncontested) are a formality. They can't propose amendments, it's a simple yes or no. Labour were in favour of the bill at second reading (when the serious principle of yes or no is discussed) and didn't change their mind for the third reading. Dennis Skinner was the only Labour MP who voted against.

Ken Clarke was a tory who voted against it.

[aggi]

Absolutely right.

But when you break that down into sectors and / or wage levels there are net givers and takers in both the non-EU and EU groups. I believe the official Migration Advisory Committee report suggested a figure, £20k, something like that.

That's why there needs to be control - only a fool wants people to come in who are net takers, worsening the lives of all of us by reducing GDP per capita. But only a fool would resist a Polish or Indian Hospital Consultant coming in too.

I seem to remember the Migration Advisory Committee report had lower-paid (I can't remember what the threshold was exactly) EU immigrants roughly breaking even in terms of their economic contribution. I'd guess as they were mainly over here working and so impacts in terms of NHS and pensions were relatively low.

[aggi]

That's not what they claim (without wanting to start another Honda debate about whether the truth is being told).

They said ""With our time horizon, which is 30 years plus, current political discussions do not change our view of the situation."

Put simply, they have more faith in the UK than many of our own MPs and citizens do. Looking at it from a level headed, dispassionate position tends to do that.

Yes, I can't imagine they'd say that (akin, as you say, to the Honda debate).

I'm sure they are willing to take the long game but the (slim but increasing) potential of Brexit being reversed and the short-term gains would be something that would be considered. It was the timing that makes me wonder.

However, having read the full article elsewhere there's not really much to the story. I thought it was a further investment that had happened but there's no time frame or amounts mentioned, it's all very vague.

[AndrewJB]

I seem to remember the Migration Advisory Committee report had lower-paid (I can't remember what the threshold was exactly) EU immigrants roughly breaking even in terms of their economic contribution. I'd guess as they were mainly over here working and so impacts in terms of NHS and pensions were relatively low.

It shouldn't need restating, but the UK has always had the right to send home EU people who move here and try to claim benefits without working. And the UK has always had the right to set and enforce working regulations and conditions that prevent EU people coming here and undercutting British workers.

[dsr]

Ken Clarke was a tory who voted against it.

Ken Clarke has always been consistent that he wouldn't vote to leave if the referendum vote had been a billion to a quarter.

[dsr]

Which takes us back to question 1 - which no one on this thread has so far attempted to answer:
When we leave the EU and seek to do new trade deals: which country (worth dealing with) is going to offer us a deal in which we expect free movement of skilled labour (who they have educated and trained) from there into the UK but refuses entry to others who are less skilled?
How stupid do you think these other countries are? And don't forget it's the UK who won't have any trade deals and will be needing them, so our bargaining power won't be strong.
Can you really see India accepting that?

I don't see the relevance of free movement. Trade deals are not normally connected with freedom of movement.

The absence of a trade deal with the UK does not stop Indian doctors from moving to the UK - there doesn't have to be a trade deal for the UK to offer bigger wages to skilled workers if we want to.

The point of a trade deal is that we will already trade with various countries under (presumably) WTO rules; the point of free trade is that it is mutually beneficial to both countries. It's not a matter of one country doing another a favour.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, so you don't think that would be a condition of such a trade deal?

[tiger76]

Another Minister quits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47405261 yet again a brexiteer,when are all the remain backing ministers going to resign as they threatened.

[Lancasterclaret]

Why would they resign?

The government gave them what they asked for.

Daft of the Brexit guy, he might never had to resign if the deal passes, which suggests he's one of the hardline ERG.

I anticipate a blog/article from him in tomorrows Telegraph and Express repeating the same old Brexit stuff that gets debunked everyday but is swallowed wholesale by those who don't want to listen.

[AndyClaret]

Why would they resign?

The government gave them what they asked for.

Daft of the Brexit guy, he might never had to resign if the deal passes, which suggests he's one of the hardline ERG.

I anticipate a blog/article from him in tomorrows Telegraph and Express repeating the same old Brexit stuff that gets debunked everyday but is swallowed wholesale by those who don't want to listen.

Why do you portray everyone as hardline ERG ? why don't you read his resignation letter before commenting.

[Lancasterclaret]

1) I've read it

2) He's hardline ERG

No Deal is a bad thing for the UK. period. Very bad. Really, really, really bad.

Having it as an option we'll never do is completely pointless.

I know that, the EU knows that and the UK Government know that. Its pointless pretending its an option.

[Jakubclaret]

Why do you portray everyone as hardline ERG ? why don't you read his resignation letter before commenting.

Are you joking? Why absorb information when you can improvise, george eustice knows when it all goes s**tshaped he won't be in the firing line, it's as good as warning her, further dialogue on extending will muddy the waters.

[Pstotto]

Nil Desperandum, this country is famed for having the best education system in the world, more or less. What's all this about skilled labour needed from overseas????????????????????

We're not that third world yet, are we????

And if we are, then really..... Brexit can't come quick enough.

Trade deals?

No trade deals. You want from us, you buy from us and vice versa, not plastic trinkets for Triumph Motorcycles.

I realize that it's not so simple, but we have now reverse 50 years of Post-war-decline and re-build our genius gene pool that got us to the top from our own stock, methinks.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't see the relevance of free movement. Trade deals are not normally connected with freedom of movement.

The absence of a trade deal with the UK does not stop Indian doctors from moving to the UK - there doesn't have to be a trade deal for the UK to offer bigger wages to skilled workers if we want to.
.

You rather argue against your own point there.
As you correctly say the absence of a trade deal does NOT "stop Indian doctors moving to the UK" .
The point is that is that if we want a negotiated trade deal with India they want reciprocal free movement to be a part of the deal.

[Pstotto]

Me, 11-plus pass, 9 O levels, 4 A levels, B.A. Hons and M.A. qualifications on the dole and ill and excluded and dysfunctional as a result, rather than contributing via design and innovation, literally billions to our economy and x that by millions for 'equal opportunities for others' etc.

Shortage of skilled labour, yeah gone to pot in despair.