UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[brucejoel99]

Betfair odds right seems to have odds of Meaningful Vote to pass tomorrow at around 53.6% vs 46.4%

Those odds would seem to assume that all Tory MPs will vote for the deal, which is certainly possible, but far from confirmed. The Burges Group, for example, is going in very hard on Twitter against BoJo's deal. I don't doubt that a lot of them will indeed vote for it (Andrew Bridgen, for example, has already said he would), but I'd be shocked if there aren't at least a few hardliners who refuse to do so.

If it passes then Boris will win a landslide and Farage is toast, forever.

Really the deal is awful. It’s the worst of both worlds for the UK. Don’t get the benefits of a clean break and don’t get the benefits of being a member either. Shame.

There are no benefits of a "clean break" (i.e. no-deal).

They would get full control over immigration policy (no freedom of movement).

Yes, but freedom of movement is more economically beneficial for the UK than the lack thereof, so on balance, it's still not a benefit.

[brucejoel99]

His not signing it is irrelevant legally.

Overwhelming legal opinion is that he has complied with what he was required to do, however sulkily. The multiple letters stunt was a typical Cummings "galaxy brain" idea which could yet backfire as previous ones have.

The crux of the legal argument is that sending the other letters is an attempt to frustrate the Benn Act, which is unlawful, as per Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture.

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that bluff .

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that bluff .

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

Which of course made no deal much more likely .

Tory extremists (including BoJo) sh*ting on the best deal that the UK could've gotten is what made no-deal much more likely. Fortunately, Parliament was able to step in with the Benn Act & Letwin Amendment.

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

Leverage is only useful if it is actually...you know...leverage.  The threat of a no deal brexit wouldn't give the UK any leverage even if everyone believed they were 100% ready and willing to follow through.

The EU would get hurt badly by the UK leaving without a deal to so then they would have an incentive to negotiate fairly

Any detrimental economic impacts that a no-deal Brexit would have for the EU pale in comparison to those that the UK would suffer.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1185605845440180231?s=19

I see the DUP is finally catching up with the reality that unionism will only survive if the UK remains.

[brucejoel99]

Breaking: Bercow refuses to allow meaningful vote on Brexit deal today.

Good. Boris had a chance on Saturday & tried to play a partisan game instead of acting reasonably.

[brucejoel99]

I hope the EU rejects any extension so this bill then will pass.

The EU won't make its decision until they see whether or not the WA bill passes. But be grateful because, if anything, the Letwin Amendment made it more likely that the bill will pass as it stands*, as now the Tory & Labour rebels aren't worrying about the immediate threat of no-deal.

*And the idea of attaching a customs union to it is being resisted in Westminster.

[brucejoel99]

There's no guarantee it will pass the Commons before 31 October... and the Lords will have their say too.

Rees-Mogg is attempting to get the WA Bill done & dusted in 3 days, & is delaying the Queen's Speech vote to do so, so while not a guarantee, it definitely looks more likely than not.

[brucejoel99]

No guarantee that MPs will vote for such a ridiculously restrictive timetable.

It also has to pass not just through the EU but the devolved assemblies, reportedly.

Yeah, but the British government is allowed to just ignore them if it wants to, in the same fashion that it could just vote to abolish them tomorrow if they wanted to. Of course, they've historically been reluctant to, but this has changed with Brexit because the SNP are clear that they'll never consent.

[brucejoel99]

Govt to table a motion for general election on Monday

SNP already said they wont back it

What is the SNP reason?  I thought they wanted an election ?

They (as does the entirety of the Opposition) want the opportunity to fully scrutinize the WA bill. With an election, said scrutiny would prematurely end with Parliament's dissolution in approximately 2 weeks' time.

[brucejoel99]

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.

Well, regardless of whether or not a repeal would simply return it to its status as a power of the royal prerogative (evidently, it's murky), the one thing it wouldn't do is make it impossible for Parliament to dissolve itself. This is because parliamentary sovereignty means that nothing is impossible for Parliament to do, so long as it's legislated for by Parliament.