Brexit negotiations

[Cobby]

I do not read the Daily Mail by the way. maybe if you stopped reading it then you would not get so hung up on it and keep referring to it.

I used to occasionally read it as some sort of principled stand on consuming a balance of news, but honestly it's so full of misinformation and deliberate misrepresentation that it's almost worthless as anything other than fascist-lite propaganda. However it's worth remembering that the DM's owner, Dacre, has been the focus of unusually friendly, and mildly sinister one-on-one activity from the Prime Minister in a way that no other representative of a media group has been.

Sadly, in the wake of the government continuing to pump out falsehoods about the EU and their negotiations, the Telegraph is moving in the same direction.

I voted to remain, but I accept that Brexit will take place. It will be a soft Brexit whether there is a right or left leaning government in power. It is just my opinion.

I too voted remain, after initially being one of those who didn't really care either way because I didn't know better. I don't believe Brexit is a done deal and the last week that has seen democracy trying to remove the ridiculous "No Deal" option from the table is a positive sign that at some point the government may just go against the tide of the right-wing media frenzy and do what their own assessments tell them is best: abandon Brexit altogether, even if it's just for the short term. That's just *my* opinion.

 

[Cobby]

I think UKIP got to 5M before Cameron offered a referendum that made it the third biggest party by votes (not seats) and exposed the voting system as being unrepresentative of the people. They had more votes than both the SNP and Lib Dems combined. That was before the referendum was offered. The problem is politics is a rich mans business not for the ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry. Thinking on this Cameron offering a referendum was not just about the Tory Party it was also about restoring faith in the voting system. Their issue though was that they could not sway the public even with the might of the biased BBC, tarring nearly everybody with racism and all these political dinosaurs coming out of the closet warning of disaster. Another factor is a lot of Lords have financial interests in the EU, they are no longer impartial.

The EU only became an issue once the right-wing media began beating the UKIP drum of conflating immigration concerns with our membership. It's pretty well documented at this point that Cameron's reasoning for offering the ref. was to appease not only the extremists in his own party, but the mounting pressure from an overly vocal media presence.

As regards "swaying the public", well, your nonsense about the BBC aside, it's much easier to interest people with a provocative lie than an uninteresting truth, hence much of the country ended up voting Leave. The rest of your argument is just more of that same dishonesty that was used to muddy the waters and confuse the issues.

 

[Mr D]

If we are forced to remain I see major changes ahead, petitions will demand the H of L is abolished and then demands for land reform like the Irish and it will go on and on as people will think their leaders have betrayed them to an international corporate elite.

You might think that your leaders have betrayed you, I won't bother.

 

[Mr D]

I do not see why giving the Commons a vote on the Brexit process will result in us somehow remaining in the EU which seems to be the prevailing opinion amongst many people. MP's will think about who voted them in before standing up in parliament and suggesting that their constituents did not know what they were voting for in the referendum.

Luckily there were tens of millions of people who voted so regardless of how an MP votes they can be said to be voting what their constituents want. I don't think any one area in this country was quite as overwhelmingly one side or the other at the time of the referendum.

 

[Mr D]

If they do their job properly, MP's will consider the proposals and decide whether they are acceptable and in the best interests of their constituents. That is their job.

Yes, that is the unfortunate aspect. When people decide what is in your best interests regardless of what you want.

 

[Mr D]

I get the feeling that a large number of MPS ( and Lords) are corrupt today, I recall a despatches TV program with Peter Oborne a few years ago concerning cash payments made to MPs with a nod and wink taking cash from Friends of Israel groups with the subtle understanding they would support measures in Israel's interests. I don't think a normal MPs salary is actually that high compared to the normal business high flyer and so think their interest is somewhat less than perfect.

They have a high wage that's more than double average salary plus they apparently can claim some expenses that you or I would not be able to do.
How high a wage should they get?

 

[Mr D]

Exactly.

This fall out is not due to whether the Commons will vote to cancel Brexit. It's about whether they even have the choice in the first place despite MPs most likely voting to leave anyway to save their own necks.

It really does astound me that some people view a Commons vote safety net as a bad thing. Without it the Government could agree to an absolutely horrendous deal that is incredibly damaging to the UK without anything standing in their way.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. For a lot of people, they will be prepared to accept any outcome to leave, regardless of damage. Although I do think a lot of that comes down to people assuming that the warnings are just scaremongering.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43977687

Even before we've left, we are currently well behind the rest of the EU in terms of growth. It would become a lot worse once the tangible effects of Brexit are felt such as tariffs and quotas.

And the result that a vote against whatever deal is on the table produces is .... what?
Leaving with no agreement next March.

Is that better than a bad agreement? We shall have to see.

 

[Mr D]

I think UKIP got to 5M before Cameron offered a referendum that made it the third biggest party by votes (not seats) and exposed the voting system as being unrepresentative of the people. They had more votes than both the SNP and Lib Dems combined. That was before the referendum was offered. The problem is politics is a rich mans business not for the ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry. Thinking on this Cameron offering a referendum was not just about the Tory Party it was also about restoring faith in the voting system. Their issue though was that they could not sway the public even with the might of the biased BBC, tarring nearly everybody with racism and all these political dinosaurs coming out of the closet warning of disaster. Another factor is a lot of Lords have financial interests in the EU, they are no longer impartial.

SNP are restricted to an area with 5.4 million total population. Pretty sure they'll never achieve 5 million voters until the voting age is brought down to 2 weeks.

Why is politics a rich man's business for you? Have you met many politicians?
I've met dozens - some of whom were not rich, a number were women.
Lets see - an admin assistant (entry level job), a small shop owner, a farmer, a nurse, a postwoman, a car mechanic, a machinist, an investor. Those are the jobs the people I am thinking of who I have met had before becoming a politician.
Only two I have met were rich. One being a guy who used to be a labour peer, name of Alan Sugar.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And the result that a vote against whatever deal is on the table produces is .... what?
Leaving with no agreement next March.

Is that better than a bad agreement? We shall have to see.

Accept the deal. Turn down the deal. Leave without one. Stay in the EU. Force May to re-negotiate.

There are a number of possibilities, but that's for our elected members of Parliament to decide, which is the way it should be.

This isn't about "thwarting the will of the people". It's about whether the Commons or the Government has control of Brexit. It is the House of Commons that is the highest decision-making body in the land (short of the monarchy), with the power to dissolve the Government and remove the PM from power if need be. Decisions of this magnitude rest on their shoulders.

 

[Mr D]

Accept the deal. Turn down the deal. Leave without one. Stay in the EU. Force May to re-negotiate.

There are a number of possibilities, but that's for our elected members of Parliament to decide, which is the way it should be.

This isn't about "thwarting the will of the people". It's about whether the Commons or the Government has control of Brexit. It is the House of Commons that is the highest decision-making body in the land (short of the monarchy), with the power to dissolve the Government and remove the PM from power if need be. Decisions of this magnitude rest on their shoulders.

So if turned down and she has to negotiate a new deal that may or may not be better than the previous one - in the meantime we leave next March. Perhaps a new deal could be reached and voted on by say summer 2020. In the meantime what happens?

Don't forget just because we can vote against the deal being put together it does not mean the other side will change any one of their positions to make it better for us and worse for them. A further negotiation may improve one aspect while also making another aspect worse.

And if we are desperate for a deal because of crashing out, who has the upper hand in negotiations?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

So if turned down and she has to negotiate a new deal that may or may not be better than the previous one - in the meantime we leave next March. Perhaps a new deal could be reached and voted on by say summer 2020. In the meantime what happens?

Things might go good. Things might go bad. The Commons might make the wrong decision and make everything worse.

It's not really the point. The point is that the House of Commons is the highest elected body, and with the role it has in the UK, it must have authority over the Brexit process. What it does with that authority is up to the MPs we've voted for.

Some seem to suggest that because the House of Commons could potentially stop Brexit or damage the leverage we have in negotiations, it's better to sidestep their authority, give our MPs no control whatsoever, and put Brexit solely in the hands of the Government to do as they please.

That basically amounts to the Government saying "You may make a decision we don't like, so we don't want you to be allowed to make one". If they can do that, then what's the point of having the House of Commons at all? Why not let the Government make any laws they wish relating to any other topic without parliamentary scrutiny?

Of course the Government would love that. They'd much prefer to march on with their own agenda without having to get it through Parliament regardless of the subject. It's just this time they have the "will of the people" tag line to use.

 

[Mr D]

Things might go good. Things might go bad. The Commons might make the wrong decision and make everything worse.

It's not really the point. The point is that the House of Commons is the highest elected body, and with the role it has in the UK, it must have authority over the Brexit process. What it does with that authority is up to the MPs we've voted for.

Some seem to suggest that because the House of Commons could potentially stop Brexit or damage the leverage we have in negotiations, it's better to sidestep their authority, give our MPs no control whatsoever, and put Brexit solely in the hands of the Government to do as they please.

That basically amounts to the Government saying "You may make a decision we don't like, so we don't want you to be allowed to make one". If they can do that, then what's the point of having the House of Commons at all? Why not let the Government make any laws they wish relating to any other topic without parliamentary scrutiny?

Of course the Government would love that. They'd much prefer to march on with their own agenda without having to get it through Parliament regardless of the subject. It's just this time they have the "will of the people" tag line to use.

Then parliament can vote on getting such powers.
And we can pay the price if they decide badly.

 

[Gecko001]

Then parliament can vote on getting such powers.
And we can pay the price if they decide badly.

Yes that is the way it works. We put them there.

We can get rid of them and the new lot can change things.

With Brexit, a new lot cannot easily change things or certainly cannot change things quickly as it involves international treaties and trade agreements all of which can take decades to agree on or change. It took four decades to get where we are today as far as our relationship with Europe is concerned. Five decades, if you take into account the negotiations in the 1960's and early 1970's before entering the Common Market.

During the Brexit process, which is likely to take decades, we might end up having to rely on the Commons to act as a body of representatives rather than a particular government we voted in.

 

[Mr D]

Yes that is the way it works. We put them there.

We can get rid of them and the new lot can change things.

With Brexit, a new lot cannot easily change things or certainly cannot change things quickly as the EU involve international treaties and trade agree agreements which can take decades to agree on or change. It took four decades to get where we are today as far as our relationship with Europe is concerned. Five decades, if you take into account the negotiations in the 1960's and early 1970's before entering the Common Market.

We might end up having to rely on the Commons to act as a body of representatives rather than one government because it that there will be several different governments during the whole Brexit process.

You cannot get rid of them except at a general election. And only the government or parliament will normally call a general election.
While I expect there probably will be a call for a general election in parliament before 2022 we may well be stuck with the parliament we have for another 4 years.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Then parliament can vote on getting such powers.
And we can pay the price if they decide badly.

Well this is the question. The House of Lords has made an amendment to give Parliament authority over the final decision, but the House of Commons has to vote to give itself that power.

What I don't like is the Government trying to undermine that by claiming it's an attempt to "thwart the will of the people". It's a disgraceful use of the referendum as a political weapon to pressure MPs against doing something they are more than entitled to do.

 

[Gecko001]

You cannot get rid of them except at a general election. And only the government or parliament will normally call a general election.
While I expect there probably will be a call for a general election in parliament before 2022 we may well be stuck with the parliament we have for another 4 years.

We can get rid of them every five years. So say in one decade there can be three changes of government. Despite the fixed-term system now in place, government terms will be shorter than five years on average. The last term was just two years.

 

[Mr D]

We can get rid of them every five years. So say in one decade there can be three changes of government. Despite the fixed-term system now in place, government terms will be shorter than five years on average. The last term was just two years.

And the term before that was 5 years.
A sitting government tends to call an election when they think they can gain from it. If they think they may lose then why call an election?

 

[Gecko001]

And the term before that was 5 years.
A sitting government tends to call an election when they think they can gain from it. If they think they may lose then why call an election?

The fixed-term system introduced a few years ago, is pretty much unworkable. If there is a vote of no-confidence and the government of the day does not get a coalition together or does not decide to lock themselves in the cabinet office, they are gone.

 

[Mr D]

The fixed-term system introduced a few years ago, is pretty much unworkable. If there is a vote of no-confidence and the government of the day does not get a coalition together or does not decide to lock themselves in the cabinet office, they are gone.

Gone. Unless the voters vote the same people back into government.
Its not parliament deciding who will sit in parliament. Its the voters.

 

[Cobby]

Yes, that is the unfortunate aspect. When people decide what is in your best interests regardless of what you want.

I quite like the idea of people whose sole profession is to be familiar with the workings of government and who, with the countries resources at their disposal, can make evidence-led decisions on what is best for the country, even if some portion of the country disagrees.

People sometimes complain about the course of treatment that doctors proscribe them, but the doctors have far more expertise than the patient and can objectively decide what is in the patient's best interests. The difference here is that the doctor doesn't have to worry about losing their job for actually doing it properly.

 

[Cobby]

And the result that a vote against whatever deal is on the table produces is .... what?
Leaving with no agreement next March.

Is that better than a bad agreement? We shall have to see.

The government's own research and analysis show:

Leaving with no deal will cause severe economic damage.
Leaving with a "bad" deal will cause quite severe economic damage.
Leaving with some membership combination (CU/SM) in place will cause *some* economic damage.

These are the facts according to the government themselves, who, alarmingly, have been strongly advocating for the first option.

 

[Cobby]

Don't forget just because we can vote against the deal being put together it does not mean the other side will change any one of their positions to make it better for us and worse for them. A further negotiation may improve one aspect while also making another aspect worse.

And if we are desperate for a deal because of crashing out, who has the upper hand in negotiations?

The EU. The EU has the upper hand in negotiations. They have had the upper hand all along and will continue to have the upper hand.

The two options that the government are very publicly mulling over in our media - they are options that the EU already ruled out last year, and the government know that.

 

[Cobby]

And the term before that was 5 years.
A sitting government tends to call an election when they think they can gain from it. If they think they may lose then why call an election?

May called the last GE early because she thought she'd make big gains. She campaigned quite prominently that it was an election about Brexit and that it would giver her a mandate for the "hard" Brexit her government had been advocating.

They lost their majority and had to buy the support of religious ultra-nationalists, and have since played down that the Brexit aspect of the GE as it would show they have no mandate for it any longer.

 

[Mr D]

May called the last GE early because she thought she'd make big gains. She campaigned quite prominently that it was an election about Brexit and that it would giver her a mandate for the "hard" Brexit her government had been advocating.

They lost their majority and had to buy the support of religious ultra-nationalists, and have since played down that the Brexit aspect of the GE as it would show they have no mandate for it any longer.

Yet they still won a general election after the brexit vote. Both a mandate from the referendum and an agreement by the voters as to which party should be in government for it.
Didn't have to get support of the other party. Its not like they are big labour supporters.
Just makes it a little easier to get votes through parliament on things other than brexit.

 

[Newchodge]

Just makes it a little easier to get votes through parliament on things other than brexit.

So why has the goivernment failed to hold a vote on ANYTHING since the GE? Because they know they will lose and would rather cripple the country by failing to bring forward vital legislation thhan risk losing power

 

[Mr D]

So why has the goivernment failed to hold a vote on ANYTHING since the GE? Because they know they will lose and would rather cripple the country by failing to bring forward vital legislation thhan risk losing power

So if I go look on Hansard I'd not find anything the government held a vote on since the general election almost 11 months ago?
If I google for vote results the media will not have any details of votes the government has won or lost since that time?
There's been no Queens speech in that time? On say 21st June 2017?

 

[Cobby]

Yet they still won a general election after the brexit vote. Both a mandate from the referendum and an agreement by the voters as to which party should be in government for it.

So just to be clear:

1. The Conservative Government have a decent majority.
2. They advocate the "hardest" Brexit possible, threatening no deal at all.
   
3. They call a General Election as they believe they can make a large gain in Parliament.
4. They campaign on the issue of a mandate for their "hard" Brexit.
5. The result of the election sees them not just fail to make gains, but actually take a whopping loss and lose their majority in Parliament.

Your argument is that this represents a clear mandate for any Brexit, let alone their "hard" Brexit?

Well, if you can justify that without using the completely dishonest "85% of people voted for Brexit parties" line, I'd love to see it.

 

[Mr D]

So just to be clear:

1. The Conservative Government have a decent majority.
2. They advocate the "hardest" Brexit possible, threatening no deal at all.
   
3. They call a General Election as they believe they can make a large gain in Parliament.
4. They campaign on the issue of a mandate for their "hard" Brexit.
5. The result of the election sees them not just fail to make gains, but actually take a whopping loss and lose their majority in Parliament.

Your argument is that this represents a clear mandate for any Brexit, let alone their "hard" Brexit?

Well, if you can justify that without using the completely dishonest "85% of people voted for Brexit parties" line, I'd love to see it.

Yes I agree they still won.
Referendum - then a year later a GE - how is the GE result NOT a mandate for the Brexit the parties have each put forwards in that year?
Lots of policies and ideas put forwards before the GE took place, one or more of those ideas may have influenced how you chose to vote. Same with other people.

 

[Cobby]

Yes I agree they still won.
Referendum - then a year later a GE - how is the GE result NOT a mandate for the Brexit the parties have each put forwards in that year?
Lots of policies and ideas put forwards before the GE took place, one or more of those ideas may have influenced how you chose to vote. Same with other people.

I didn't say they didn't win the GE. That's not the issue.

Starting strong, asking for a mandate and finishing weaker than you started. That's the issue, and you keep dodging it.

 

[Mr D]

I didn't say they didn't win the GE. That's not the issue.

Starting strong, asking for a mandate and finishing weaker than you started. That's the issue, and you keep dodging it.

And as they won its not an issue.

Who is the party in government today? That's right, the same one that was in power prior to the GE. By the sound of it much to your annoyance.

 

[Cobby]

And as they won its not an issue.

Who is the party in government today? That's right, the same one that was in power prior to the GE. By the sound of it much to your annoyance.

I am not and have not, at any point, disputed that they won. You are being dishonest.

Do you think that when a government asks for a mandate to do something and then to the whole country's surprise, loses their majority in Parliament, that constitutes a mandate or is in any indicative of support for their advertised course of action?

Because at the moment, intentionally or not, you are arguing that the government have the support of the public do do literally anything they wish. Which is obviously absurd.

 

[Mr D]

I am not and have not, at any point, disputed that they won. You are being dishonest.

Do you think that when a government asks for a mandate to do something and then to the whole country's surprise, loses their majority in Parliament, that constitutes a mandate or is in any indicative of support for their advertised course of action?

Because at the moment, intentionally or not, you are arguing that the government have the support of the public do do literally anything they wish. Which is obviously absurd.

The government won the election. That's all that counts.
They lost their majority in parliament but retained their position as the government.

The voters decided based on the system of voting that we have, this is the government we should have.
Your dissembling about mandate and loss of majority does not change the fact the Conservatives are the governing party.

Yes indeed the government can do what they want - if they can get enough MPs in parliament to agree with them. That includes their own party as well as other parties.
As has been happening for hundreds of years now.

 

[Cobby]

The government won the election. That's all that counts.
They lost their majority in parliament but retained their position as the government.

The voters decided based on the system of voting that we have, this is the government we should have.
Your dissembling about mandate and loss of majority does not change the fact the Conservatives are the governing party.

Yes indeed the government can do what they want - if they can get enough MPs in parliament to agree with them. That includes their own party as well as other parties.
As has been happening for hundreds of years now.

*sigh* Why not stop reducing everything to "lol they won"? That's what Russian twitter trolls do and it's unhelpful to the discussion.

So far all we have managed to do is identify that your position is this: a government campaigning for a mandate and then taking a heavy loss and losing their majority as a result is actually them receiving the mandate they wanted.

I'm hoping you can see the contradiction there and elaborate as to why you think that's the case.

 

[Gecko001]

Because at the moment, intentionally or not, you are arguing that the government have the support of the public do do literally anything they wish. Which is obviously absurd.

In a parliamentary democracy governments do not need the "support of the public" as you put it. They need the support of parliament.

 

[Newchodge]

In a parliamentary democracy governments do not need the "support of the public" as you put it. They need the support of parliament.

ABSOLUTELY. However this lot is trying, to deny parliament any say in the decision because they rely on 'the will of the people'

The people spoke, and parliament needs to take into account what the people said. Not to blindly follow it. The role of parliament is to act in what the individual MP's believe to be in the best interests of their constituents. That is what this government is trying its damnedest to prevent.

 

[Mr D]

*sigh* Why not stop reducing everything to "lol they won"? That's what Russian twitter trolls do and it's unhelpful to the discussion.

So far all we have managed to do is identify that your position is this: a government campaigning for a mandate and then taking a heavy loss and losing their majority as a result is actually them receiving the mandate they wanted.

I'm hoping you can see the contradiction there and elaborate as to why you think that's the case.

Because that is the sole point.
A GE a year after the referendum, how does that not give the voters the ability to choose which party should be in government?

The Conservatives had a loss in seats, they still won the election.
How can you not see that the voters decided which party should be in power for the negotiations?

If the Lib Dems had won we'd have had a somewhat different negotiation strategy. They didn't, the Conservatives did.

 

[Mr D]

ABSOLUTELY. However this lot is trying, to deny parliament any say in the decision because they rely on 'the will of the people'

The people spoke, and parliament needs to take into account what the people said. Not to blindly follow it. The role of parliament is to act in what the individual MP's believe to be in the best interests of their constituents. That is what this government is trying its damnedest to prevent.

So if government won't play ball then parliament has other options. Which may not result in change or may change some things.

 

[Cobby]

In a parliamentary democracy governments do not need the "support of the public" as you put it. They need the support of parliament.

Absolutely. But in this specific instance, we're discussing the principle of a mandate and whether the outcome of the GE can seriously be considered the mandate she had requested and campaigned for.

ABSOLUTELY. However this lot is trying, to deny parliament any say in the decision because they rely on 'the will of the people'

With the caveat that there's now good evidence that "the will of the people" could have swung the other way!

 

[Cobby]

Because that is the sole point.

It is if you're uninterested in the details of politics I suppose; "Winning is all that matters."

Because that is the sole point.

The Conservatives had a loss in seats, they still won the election.
How can you not see that the voters decided which party should be in power for the negotiations?[/quote]
That is not technically the same thing as a clear mandate, but since you keep avoiding the question, we'll just let it rest.

 

[Cobby]

So on the topic of mandates, I'm growing more interested in the potential outcome of a second referendum: