Off Topic Politics Thread

[Onionman]

Boring details I know, but an amendment to the Brexit bill has also passed against the government's attempts to block it. It means that MP's (as they should) will have a say on the final deal if this deal is voted down. It was shocking that the government tried to prevent MPs having a say but that's the kind of madness that this situation has fed.

It is a boring detail but the government was defeated quite heavily, which suggests that backbench MPs are starting to develop backbones. It also means that a No Deal Brexit (factually a guaranteed calamity regardless of the blind faith of the lunatic fringe) is now much less likely, as MPs won't allow a No Deal through. MPs have seen the forecasts on No Deal and know it'll be horrific so even our MPs won't vote for it en masse. The ERG will - they are, after all, lunatics - but they couldn't even get 48 letters together to kick May out.

It was dull but is one of the more crucial votes held in Parliament in our lifetimes.

Vin

 

[Onionman]

Quite good sport (in a bear-baiting sort of way) to see May stand up in Parliament immediately after her government has been defeated on three succcessive three-line-whip votes in about 90 minutes.

Vin

 

[SaintinSerbia]

how do you catch a moped thief? (ignoring whether he's a viscous criminal or your little boy)

 

[San Tejón]

Not Theresa’s day.
The BBC has pulled out of showing her debate with Corbyn, as a format can’t be agreed on.
I’m in favour of a straight forward head to head, one against one, not the format May wants, where she can garner support from other vocal panelist’s and, of course, the obligatory Conservative supporting host of the programme.

 

[VocalMinority]

how do you catch a moped thief? (ignoring whether he's a viscous criminal or your little boy)

Yeah thats the problem i have. If anyone can provide a method that is less dangerous than ramming them and works i would support it.

IMO In an ideal world the method of catching shouldn't be outside the legal punishment for the crime but that obviously doesn't work out in reality.

 

[Onionman]

"As for no-deal, a moment's look at the economic projections show that it would be plunging this country into chaos for the sake of satisfying the ideological fixations of a tiny minority of this House. And I will not let it happen."

Best moment of tonight in Parliament.

Vin

 

[ImpSaint]

The family company, of George Osborne (of which he has little connection, other than a few shares apparently) has only paid corporation tax once in ten years.
That’s lucky.

The family of Margaret Hodge very similar situation. this isn't a Tory thing. They are all at it.

 

[Archers Road]

The family of Margaret Hodge very similar situation. this isn't a Tory thing. They are all at it.

It really is a Tory thing. Cameron, Johnson, Gove, Osbourne, Rees-Mogg, David Davis, Oliver Letwin - their families have been doing it for generations. A bit of “whataboutery” citing Margaret Hodge won’t change that.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn profits from investment vehicles deliberately domiciled in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas? Or Keir Starmer? Sadiq Khan perhaps? What do you reckon? Because I think if they did, the Daily Mail would be all over it like a rash, don’t you?

 

[ImpSaint]

Boring details I know, but an amendment to the Brexit bill has also passed against the government's attempts to block it. It means that MP's (as they should) will have a say on the final deal if this deal is voted down. It was shocking that the government tried to prevent MPs having a say but that's the kind of madness that this situation has fed.

It is a boring detail but the government was defeated quite heavily, which suggests that backbench MPs are starting to develop backbones. It also means that a No Deal Brexit (factually a guaranteed calamity regardless of the blind faith of the lunatic fringe) is now much less likely, as MPs won't allow a No Deal through. MPs have seen the forecasts on No Deal and know it'll be horrific so even our MPs won't vote for it en masse. The ERG will - they are, after all, lunatics - but they couldn't even get 48 letters together to kick May out.

It was dull but is one of the more crucial votes held in Parliament in our lifetimes.

Vin

While the theme is true the facts aren't right. It isn't true that the MPs can stop a "no deal" just like that. They only have that option IF the EU doesn't push the default button once the time is up.

I will agree though that the reality is that the EU won't. Timing is everything and on the day the MPs get this vote the EU just happen to announce we can cancel A50 without penalty. No coincidence there.

The ball is entirely in the EUs court here. The amendment today is like a football team having a chance to stay up if they win..........as long as someone else loses. It is out of parliament's hands on stopping no deal.

 

[ImpSaint]

how do you catch a moped thief? (ignoring whether he's a viscous criminal or your little boy)

Tazer

 

[ImpSaint]

It really is a Tory thing. Cameron, Johnson, Gove, Osbourne, Rees-Mogg, David Davis, Oliver Letwin - their families have been doing it for generations. A bit of “whataboutery” citing Margaret Hodge won’t change that.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn profits from investment vehicles deliberately domiciled in the Cayman Islands or Bahamas? Or Keir Starmer? Sadiq Khan perhaps? What do you reckon? Because I think if they did, the Daily Mail would be all over it like a rash, don’t you?

Not whataboutery. Just the constant picking on Tories as if everyone else is an angel. They should hammer the lot. We agree there.

How do you know Corbyn or any of the others hasn't got a stash hidden? Or are we back to quantity rather than what they do?

As for the Mail comment. The Guardian spends all day attacking the Tories. Thats what papers do.

It gets boring. They should mend the laws and catch everybody whatever their tribe. Whatever the company, the political leaning or anything else.........but they don't.

 

[Onionman]

While the theme is true the facts aren't right. It isn't true that the MPs can stop a "no deal" just like that. They only have that option IF the EU doesn't push the default button once the time is up.

I will agree though that the reality is that the EU won't. Timing is everything and on the day the MPs get this vote the EU just happen to announce we can cancel A50 without penalty. No coincidence there.

The ball is entirely in the EUs court here. The amendment today is like a football team having a chance to stay up if they win..........as long as someone else loses. It is out of parliament's hands on stopping no deal.

MPs can prevent no-deal in Parliament now. Couple that with the fact that the advice today says that provided the ECJ believes Parliament is acting in good faith then Parliament can unilaterally rescind Article 50. And you can bet your bottom dollar that preventing No Deal will be seen as good faith. Nobody but your pals in the ERG want that to happen. It's not a matter of the EU not pressing the default button. They would actively have to argue before the ECJ that there was bad faith (examples of that might be if Parliament said we're provisionally accepting May's deal but cancelling A50 in order to renegotiate the deal to try to improve it).

Vin

 

[ChilcoSaint]

MPs can prevent no-deal in Parliament now. Couple that with the fact that the advice today says that provided the ECJ believes Parliament is acting in good faith then Parliament can unilaterally rescind Article 50. And you can bet your bottom dollar that preventing No Deal will be seen as good faith. Nobody but your pals in the ERG want that to happen. It's not a matter of the EU not pressing the default button. They would actively have to argue before the ECJ that there was bad faith (examples of that might be if Parliament said we're provisionally accepting May's deal but cancelling A50 in order to renegotiate the deal to try to improve it).

Vin

The obvious course once the Draft Agreement is consigned to the dustbin is to suspend Article 50 to remove the time constraint. Theresa May made a monumental error in invoking A50 in the first place, with no prospect of a deal ever happening. That led to the ragbag effort being debated as I write, which will be defeated next Tuesday. An amendment making No Deal impossible will almost certainly be carried, and whether or not a General Election follows the inevitable no-confidence vote, the negotiations with the EU on the new deal must be carried out by a cross-party team. When the new deal has been thrashed out to the satisfaction of a majority in Parliament, there should be a second referendum to ratify or reject it.

 

[ImpSaint]

MPs can prevent no-deal in Parliament now. Couple that with the fact that the advice today says that provided the ECJ believes Parliament is acting in good faith then Parliament can unilaterally rescind Article 50. And you can bet your bottom dollar that preventing No Deal will be seen as good faith. Nobody but your pals in the ERG want that to happen. It's not a matter of the EU not pressing the default button. They would actively have to argue before the ECJ that there was bad faith (examples of that might be if Parliament said we're provisionally accepting May's deal but cancelling A50 in order to renegotiate the deal to try to improve it).

Vin

Nope. This whole "no majority for no deal" is intentionally very midleading. A50 has a 2 year limit on it. "no deal" is quite simply the default position. Parliament cannot stop a no deal unless the EU agrees. For the EU to agree the government has to ask them. If the government doesn't ask then we default. If the government does ask and the EU says NO we default.

However in reality we now know that we just handed the EU all the leverage. We will ask. The EU will agree but they can now ask for more and more to agree to the extension.

There is no way the government is going to rescind A50.

And I am not a pal of the ERG. It is funny how the conservative forums are in meltdown at the moment. Refusing to deliver leaflets that May and CCHQ has sent to their members HQs.

I was for a sensible deal. Not a capitulation to whatever the EU decided was going to be allowed. Some give and take, not give, give, give.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Nope. This whole "no majority for no deal" is intentionally very midleading. A50 has a 2 year limit on it. "no deal" is quite simply the default position. Parliament cannot stop a no deal unless the EU agrees. For the EU to agree the government has to ask them. If the government doesn't ask then we default. If the government does ask and the EU says NO we default.

However in reality we now know that we just handed the EU all the leverage. We will ask. The EU will agree but they can now ask for more and more to agree to the extension.

There is no way the government is going to rescind A50.

And I am not a pal of the ERG. It is funny how the conservative forums are in meltdown at the moment. Refusing to deliver leaflets that May and CCHQ has sent to their members HQs.

I was for a sensible deal. Not a capitulation to whatever the EU decided was going to be allowed. Some give and take, not give, give, give.

You’re ignoring the fact that there will never, ever, in a million years be a majority in Parliament for a No Deal Brexit. If and when the Draft Agreement is defeated, Article 50 can and will be unilaterally withdrawn or suspended by whoever is in power in order to start the negotiations again. And I believe that now the catastrophic effects of No Deal are more widely understood than they were in 2016, Remain is still in with a shout.

 

[ImpSaint]

You’re ignoring the fact that there will never, ever, in a million years be a majority in Parliament for a No Deal Brexit. If and when the Draft Agreement is defeated, Article 50 can and will be unilaterally withdrawn or suspended by whoever is in power in order to start the negotiations again. And I believe that now the catastrophic effects of No Deal are more widely understood than they were in 2016, Remain is still in with a shout.

I am not ignoring the fact that there is no majority for a no deal. I quite agree.

I find it very hard to believe that enough MPs would vote to rescind A50 after they have been so careful over the past 2 years to say "we respect the referendum but...." They could have just said all along that they didn't.

They can't extend without the agreement of the EU.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

I am not ignoring the fact that there is no majority for a no deal. I quite agree.

I find it very hard to believe that enough MPs would vote to rescind A50 after they have been so careful over the past 2 years to say "we respect the referendum but...." They could have just said all along that they didn't.

They can't extend without the agreement of the EU.

The EU won’t stop a rescinding of A50 if it’s in good faith to buy more time. They have said this today.

 

[ImpSaint]

The EU won’t stop a rescinding of A50 if it’s in good faith to buy more time. They have said this today.

rescind is cancelling not extending. Do you really think the HoC would vote to cancel?

"The AG advises that the withdrawal needs to be made in good faith, not just to extend negotiations. Chances are the ECJ will be in agreement

This essentially means we can withdraw unilaterally but the EU could potentially go through the ECJ to argue that the withdrawal wasn't being made in good faith."

 

[ImpSaint]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Schad]

"Warrior race billing"!?