Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[Saracen999]

Actually I might, simply because it sounds like a much fairer system and seeing such a bunch of [very naughty words] gain power would more likely lead people into voting responsibly, as well as coaxing into the polling stations all those who don't bother voting because they think it's a rigged, pointless two-party system... all in the name of removing the Corbyners.

Corrected for you.

Or better yet, both.

[Ttaskmaster]

I just don't put precise personal info on the net. Privacy, y'know.

Nice try..... good effort.... but I doubt she buys that any more than I do!!

Corrected for you.
Or better yet, both.

No correction needed. I was directly addressing the concept of UKIP being the largest party. It can't really happen if one of the Two Party parties has the majority, as it reinforces the stereotype and contradicts the mechanics needed to inspire action against it.

But we shall see, as it's looking like we'll hit that legally binding Leave date still with thumbs up our proverbials, and no choice but to go deal-less into the cold...

[spacein_vader]

Hey, we agree.

Wanna start a (political) party? See how far we get before we fracture?

Sounds good, I'm sure we could manage a split over Europe before the end of the week.

The Privacy Party?

[ik9000]

Sounds good, I'm sure we could manage a split over Europe before the end of the week.

The Privacy Party?

the emblem can be a tin foil hat.

[Saracen999]

....

But we shall see, as it's looking like we'll hit that legally binding Leave date still with thumbs up our proverbials, and no choice but to go deal-less into the cold...

Possibly. The date can be changed comparatively easily provided the atipulated conditions are met.

This is "as I remember it" but I'm certain provision exists within the withdrawal act for the date to be changed by regulation. That means (for anyone that doesn't know) that provided it meets with the Act's stipulations, a Crown minister csn introduce secondary legislation (i.e. a Statutory Instument) to amend the date, but amending the statutory commitment to leave requires a repeal, i.e. more primary legislation. The difference is that an SI goes through more or less on the nod. It requires a vote, but not the compkex legislation process (white paper, readings, committee stages, more reading, votes in both Houses and Royal Assent). So, if thegovernment chose the SI route is relatively brief.

But, and this is the bit my memory is vague on it being months ago I read the Act) the date requires some preconditions including, IIRC, an agreed deal to be in place.

Which is why I think that's long been May's plan - run the clock until it's her deal or a no-deal exit because time won't exist to do anything else.

Which, IMHO, is why we hear rumours of a "Meaningful Vote 3", and possibly even a "Meaningful Vote 4", the latter being extremely close to zero hour. She could even use that as leverage at the EU leaders meeting because, ultimately, these things nearly all go "to the wire" and that requires principals being present, not just Commission staff, whatever their level.

But who knows. Maybe I completely wrong. Maybe other MPs will come up with a way round the Withdrawal Act but, short of that, the Withdrawal Act repeals the European Communities Act at the specified date and time and the current votes don't change that.

Whether thumbs are currently inserted into uncomforable places depends, I guess, on your perspective. No deal is not my preferred choice, but it is better than BRINO.

I still think May's deal is very possible, especially if we get to the only altetnative being no-deal exit.

[Saracen999]

Also, a no-deal exit doesn't preclude a strong workable relationship going forward, as talks on the future haven't even properly started yet. But it certainly involves some short-term ..... issues.

[Ttaskmaster]

Why can't we just go No Deal, storm out and tell the EU to go [pineapple] itself, before then agreeing whatever trade deals we like with whoever we like?
From what I understand of it, South Africa did well enough with a somewhat similar approach during all their trade sanctions (mainly because Israel also stuck two fingers up at the rules).

[Galant]

Why can't we just go No Deal, storm out and tell the EU to go [pineapple] itself, before then agreeing whatever trade deals we like with whoever we like?
From what I understand of it, South Africa did well enough with a somewhat similar approach during all their trade sanctions (mainly because Israel also stuck two fingers up at the rules).

We can, but the politicians don't have the stomach for it. You can take the government out of the EU, but apparently you can't take the EU out of the government.

The younger politicians at least have only ever had a concept of the UK within the EU, and governance dependent in part on EU legislation. The sort of independent spirit required to make a go of this, the spirit that the voters wanted the UK to demonstrate, seems to be largely lacking in the halls of Westminster.

Note - I'm not saying that sticking two fingers up at the EU/spiting them was or is the best way forward. Just that we can, if we want to. But Theresa May and chums clearly don't want to. There's a lot to be said for a nice political career within the EU.

[Galant]

I've been pondering something that struck me yesterday while watching a documentary on Venezuela. The concern is expressed at times that Brexit is damaging democracy. That often can sound like hyperbole, and people might wonder how? And then along with Trump in the USA, you hear concern over how leaders like him are damaging democracy, are becoming more dictatorial, even invoking the name of Hitler. There's genuine concern about the effect that's having on society.

Well taking that into consideration, perhaps we can begin to see how this debacle of governance over Brexit, the appeal to cancel Brexit, or call a second referendum - a modified referendum with no real Brexit even - can be damaging to British democracy.

If you'll pardon what might seem like an extreme comparison, there are some fearful parallels. In Venezuela Maduro has faced a vote to eject him. He ignored it. When at one point the national assembly held an opposition majority, he took steps to change the law and remove that assembly, replacing it with something in his favour. He later raised an election not on the legitimacy of that new body, but a simple choice of options within that corrupt entity. Real choice was taken off the table. Riots have gone to the streets, people take votes, but the choice of the people is ignored.

Now, that's not the scene in the UK, it's an extreme situation, nevertheless, what you have their is a ruling individual/government which is ignored public votes because it knows better. It has manipulated political structure and processes in order to prevent any real opposition to the government and its policies. You essentially have, in principle, the same sort of approach that is being toyed with in the UK right now. A supposedly representative government ignoring its own promises, and the vote of the people, to move things the way it thinks they should go.

Obviously these are different scenarios, however, if we want a picture, in the West, of how a dictatorship could arise out of democracy, and how a government can run roughshod over longstanding principles and the democratic process, then we don't need to look at Trump, we can just take a glance towards London, and what happens when a government finds that democratic representation goes in a different direction to their own preferences, and threatens their own destination.

This, I think, is how British democracy can be damaged, undermined, by failing to deliver Brexit.

[Ttaskmaster]

When at one point the national assembly held an opposition majority, he took steps to change the law and remove that assembly, replacing it with something in his favour.

I seem to recall that happening a lot with previous dictators. Didn't we have a war shortly after one such incident?

[OilSheikh]

That Gina Miller needs to be lynched. We are the only laughing stock in the world where the govt. in power needs to get approval from opposition.

[Saracen999]

With regard to "damaging democracy", I think we are already quite a way down that track. There are a series of indicators .... and causes :-

- the new breed of "professional" politicians

- the utter contempt akmost all politicians show for the people with weasel-worded, evasive and very obviously misleading and deceptive answers in interviews

- the fact that when one screws up, they almost never either admit it, or take responsibility and resign

- the MPs expenses scandal, which was a total and utter disgrace

- the way our PM has handled Brexit

- the farce of PM's Questions.

- and of course, the pantamime show that Westminster has treated us to in the last few weeks


But the overwhelming example is the .... I was going to say disconnect, but actually gulf, the chasm, the massive void .... between MPs and us. And in recent years, we've been growing more and more aware of it, aware of the reality of the fiction of democracy, of the nature of the emperors new clothes.

This gulf is exemplified by the times politicians claim to want to listen to the people, which turns out to be them "explaining things better". What they mean by listening is us listening to them, while they explain again, S L O W L Y, and in words of one syllable that we stupid plebs might actually understand.

Small wonder both the far left and far right are having a resurgence in popularity, and in multiple parts of Europe - it's 'cos so many of us are utterly disenchanted, and increasingly angry, with the farce that is Westminster.

[spacein_vader]

That Gina Miller needs to be lynched. We are the only laughing stock in the world where the govt. in power needs to get approval from opposition.

She only needw approval from the opposition because she couldn't win a majority in a general election, nothing to do with Miller.

Every democracy in the world that I'm aware of passes legislation by a majority of the legislature having to vote for it.

[Saracen999]

She only needw approval from the opposition because she couldn't win a majority in a general election, nothing to do with Miller.

Every democracy in the world that I'm aware of passes legislation by a majority of the legislature having to vote for it.

Erm, with the confidence and supply agreement with the DUP, she does (in normal circumstances) have a small but workable majority and doesn't need approval from the opposition.

The probkem is Brexit isn't normal circumstances, and she can't even rely on votes from all her own Cabinet, never mind backbenchers. Brexit cuts across traditional party lines and some on hoth sides are prepared to vote on the issue, even in the face of a three line whip.

Which is weird considering the proportion of both main parties that voted to pass the Withdrawal Act so many are now voyjng to try to frustrate.

Small wonder those outside Westminster so often regard those at the Westminster chimp's tea party with such disdain .... whichever party they're in.

[Spud1]

This, I think, is how British democracy can be damaged, undermined, by failing to deliver Brexit.

"British democracy" is a rather strange thing in itself - and if you look at how our system works (and has done for many, many years now), it's already well and truly broken. In the confines of our current system though, we elect representitives to make the tough decisions for us, in the best interests of our country, specifically to avoid situations like this when the general public are well and truly split with no clear majority for a decision either way (you can argue the 2-3% thing as much as you like, but practically the country is split and leave or remain, people will be pissed). That system already isn't "democracy" as many would understand or like it, and thats before you even get into the mess of our electoral system that supports it.

The very fact the referrendum was positioned in the way it was has been really damaging and has left the government tied in knots, as they know Brexit is a huge risk and that it is likely to be initially hugely damaging to the UK, but they can't not try and follow through with the result as-is given the promises that were made, even if it's actually their job to make the correct & best decision for the country, which historically would be to remain given the general propensity to avoid risk in large government decisons in the past. (no one knows for sure if leaving the EU will be a good or bad thing, whichever way you voted - anyone who says they do is making it up).

I am clearly a remainer and have never heard of a logical, rational and non-angry argument for leaving the EU, but I also don't want a second referrendum. Personally I want the governement to do their job and act in the best interests of our country, which is what we employ them for, rather than all this pandering to a rather pointless vote. That would be to abandon this and remain....With a little luck and 2-3 weeks of policy making this whole disaster could be undone. Sadly the majority of our MPs are too spineless to do it, thinking of their own careers rather than their jobs (a strong concept in many ways ) and i'm left unsure of what will happen this week.

tl;dr - I believe that the truly "British Democratic" thing to do is to ignore the referrendum and remain tihe EU. Thats not the same as the by-the-book "democractic" thing to do, which would be to leave based on a slim margin of a public vote

[OilSheikh]

^ So, tell me do you want more East European immigration in the country ?
IMO, there are more of them here than the number of Asians and Blacks who have come here in the last 100 years.
And, please don't bring up biased stats from the govt or some other so-called independent body. Get on a train in London at any time of the day and survey your carriage. 90% of the carriage will be full of East Europeans.
In my area, it already feels like I am living in East Europe as almost every house on my street has been bought by an East European.
I have already had to sell my previous house ( where I was born and grew up ) and had to move to a different area and the same thing here again!

Tell me ..
do you want more East European gangs?
more of their prostitutes and brothels in your neighbourhood?
more gun crimes ?
more drugs?
more beggars?
more pick-pockets and burglars?
more money in benefits going to them ?
more delays in seeing your GP ? ( takes me a month to get an appointment these days vs next day like before )
more racism ? ( East Europeans are absolutely racist. They stare at non-whites in trains and "accidentally" push or step on them )
more reckless driving ?
more criminals staying here and can't be deported due to EU uman rights?
more immigration from non-EU where their visa applications were refused but they got approved in another EU country and then came here ?
more overcrowding on trains?
more buildings popping up ?

I could go on and on.

It's time remainers like you open your eyes and see how the country has been shafted shamelessly for years. We need to leave asap and start doing an internal cleanup and commence deportations.