Brexit thread III

1616264666769

Comments

  • @alienfromzog and several others, you can apparently get ready to say "I told you so"...

  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    I thought Johnson said at some point today that if he didn't get his way he would call a General Election.

    He's u-turning so quickly I can't tell if I'm looking at his face or his arse.
  • I reckon they’ll go for a longer until the budgetsummit sortyourdemocracyoutnow extension rather than the three month - as then they can get election and 2nd ref in (if they’re lucky a50 revocation), it can be terminated early if the agreement is passed in parliament or a referendum; and they won’t keep having to have emergency summitness to avoid carrying the can for no deal.
  • Almost weeping - almost screaming. What have we become? How are we reduced to this farce?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Sinn Fein saying they want a poll on Irish unity within 5 years. I wonder if the Brexiteers anticipated this, emerging from Brexit.

    As I’ve said before, I doubt many of them care about NI either way.

    Many are probably barely aware that Northern Ireland is 'really' part of the UK. Certainly not properly British! I can still remember the red-top newspapers during the 70's and 80's questioning why British soldiers were in Ireland, and saying that if there were people in NI who wanted to be British, why didn't they just move over to England? I would say, too, that for a certain kind of Brexit voter the opportunity of sloughing off the liability that is Northern Ireland would be a most desirable side effect of Brexit.

    Is it really part of Britain at all? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that sort of thing.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I thought Johnson said at some point today that if he didn't get his way he would call a General Election.

    He's u-turning so quickly I can't tell if I'm looking at his face or his arse.

    If you can detect the emanation of speech, I would venture to suggest that you are looking at the latter.

    In a more substantive vein, I wonder if the labour offer to work on a bill timetable was intended purely for the press - and if it will ‘cut through’ if so. It seems to be an attempt to deny being the cause of delay, in preparation for the election that still seems very likely.

  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @alienfromzog and several others, you can apparently get ready to say "I told you so"...
    From a pragmatic mainland sense, your position makes sense (and it is still only a recommendation). But it didn't sit nicely with the effort Boris was/is putting in. Granted you could see why admitting the EU isn't threatened wouldn't be ideal.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Is it really part of Britain at all? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that sort of thing.

    Friendly advice: go here and don't come back to this thread until you've absorbed the contents.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Sinn Fein saying they want a poll on Irish unity within 5 years. I wonder if the Brexiteers anticipated this, emerging from Brexit.

    As I’ve said before, I doubt many of them care about NI either way.

    Many are probably barely aware that Northern Ireland is 'really' part of the UK. Certainly not properly British! I can still remember the red-top newspapers during the 70's and 80's questioning why British soldiers were in Ireland, and saying that if there were people in NI who wanted to be British, why didn't they just move over to England? I would say, too, that for a certain kind of Brexit voter the opportunity of sloughing off the liability that is Northern Ireland would be a most desirable side effect of Brexit.

    Is it really part of Britain at all? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that sort of thing.

    It is part of the UK, as noted. Great Britain is the large island east of Ireland and is a geographical rather than a political term.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @alienfromzog and several others, you can apparently get ready to say "I told you so"...

    No.

    All I will say is this:
    1) Thank God for that!
    2) Now listen, UK, you have been saved by grace; don't waste it. Sort this shit out now!*

    We are really on the edge here. We have avoided catastrophe for now. We must fix this. It really isn't over.

    AFZ

    *I'm thinking of the words of the priest in Les Miserables to Valjean... use this precious extension to become an honest government or something... :lol:

    P.S. I was working on Saturday. I am on call tonight. I am a surgeon. It is incredibly unfair on me that these highest-stakes votes happen when I can't drink!!!!
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is it really part of Britain at all? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that sort of thing.

    Friendly advice: go here and don't come back to this thread until you've absorbed the contents.
    Although colouring NI orange may not go down well with some ...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Is it really part of Britain at all? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that sort of thing.

    Friendly advice: go here and don't come back to this thread until you've absorbed the contents.

    Like it.
  • Therefore, as a pragmatic alternative there should be a referendum to confirm whether we agree with Parliament - if Parliament support the WA then the choice is between that vs Remain, if Parliament reject that (ie: accepts the default no-deal) then the choice is between no-deal vs Remain (I accept I might not have spelt out that bit before).

    So how does this stand now?

    The WA has been passed; does this mean any referendum should be WA vs No Deal?

    An election is likely: would this mean in effect a 3-way referendum, or even 4-way?

    Brexit party (+ DUP?)-> No Deal
    Tories -> WA
    Labour -> Referendum WA vs No Deal (?)
    Lib Dem, Greens, et al -> Referendum WA vs Revoke?

  • It’s a good vid, my preferred constitutional solution to the UK is that we should be federated, and that the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies need some kind of proper democratic resolution that includes effective direct representation at national government level.

    Gibraltar, for example, is royally screwed by Brexit - but has no mp in parliament voting tonight.
  • (And don’t even get me started on the clusterfuck that is the village on a volcano situation of Montserrat.)
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Therefore, as a pragmatic alternative there should be a referendum to confirm whether we agree with Parliament - if Parliament support the WA then the choice is between that vs Remain, if Parliament reject that (ie: accepts the default no-deal) then the choice is between no-deal vs Remain (I accept I might not have spelt out that bit before).

    So how does this stand now?

    The WA has been passed; does this mean any referendum should be WA vs No Deal?

    No. The WA has passed its second reading in the Commons. There are 3 readings for a Bill to pass the commons; the first is merely procedural. The second is essentially an 'agreement in principle' - here you can probably read that as we think we should leave the EU with a withdrawal agreement and not without... Then there is the committee stage and the potential attachment of amendments. It can only be said to have passed the Commons once it has passed it's third reading. However, it does not come into law unless it passes the Lords as well. If there are significant changes that the Lords want to make a Bill can easily bounce between the Houses for a while. (I think that unlikely here but some push-back from the Lords is likely given how atrocious this Bill is as first drafted). Ultimately if the Lords refuses to pass a Bill, the Commons can force it through using the Parliament Act (of 1926 IIRC, but that might be wrong).

    So, no it hasn't passed yet and the effect of the Letwin amendment on Saturday (AIUI) is that the meaningful vote that is necessary for the UK to accept any particular deal was passed conditionally - i.e. if the WA Bill passes all stages, then Parliament has consented to it.

    So, we're kinda in limbo. Parliament has indicated that they want a deal but not as yet accepted this deal. The key difference here is that Mrs May never brought her WA Bill to parliament because it failed the meaningful vote (essentially just a Commons Motion but given force of Law by the 2018 Withdrawal Act in response to the Miller (1) case).

    So, um, don't know what would be the alternative on the ballot...

    But the Labour position is clear:
    WA* vs Remain
    LibDems would probably be the same
    SNP would be the same
    PC would be the same
    Conservative:
    Who knows? - but if it's pre-an-election it would be hard for them to push No Deal and in this scenario, it only gets through Parliament wiht Remain on the ballot.

    AFZ

    *If the decision to go for a referendum was pre-election it would be whatever WA the government had cobbled together. If it's post a Labour win** then it would be a quick negotiation with the EU on a customs-union Norway+ type option*** WA/political declation.

    **Labour majority or Labour government supported by other parties
    ***One thing Boris has done which will help Labour is shown that Corbyn could get his alternative deal agreed with the EU easily quick enough to have had a referendum on it within 6 months of become PM which is what he promised in the conference speech.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @Shubenacadie yes, those complaining the loudest here about the unheard 48% are noticeably silent on the terms of a second referendum. Is anybody here prepared to argue that it should carry a two-thirds majority to be binding?

    I'm not -- any 2nd referendum prior to Brexit should be on the same terms as the 2016 one (unless there are any minor improvements that can be made). I agree with Hugal:
    Hugal wrote: »
    As it was a simple majority that won the 2016 vote it should be a simple majority again. As far as I can see the default position has changed. It was remain it is now leave. To give an advantage to the current default when none was given to the default at the time would be unfair. To give an advantage to remain would be unfair. A simple majority is best. If that leads to leave then I will hate it but as long as it is a proper and fair vote I would live with it.

    What I was referring to was a hypothetical future situation in which it is proposed that Britain (if it still exists as a nation state, or some part of it if it doesn't) should rejoin the EU -- that would be a major change which some might argue (I'm not saying I necessarily agree) should require more than just a simple majority.
    Gee D wrote: »
    Shubenacadie, I can see what you're getting at - which may have more strength had voting been compulsory. As it was only about 70% from memory voted. The inference must be that 30% just did not care. So I go back to asking what percentage you consider should have been needed.

    I don't know (although one could make a case for saying that for a major change the pro-change people should have a majority over [anti-change + don't care]). The only precendent that I'm aware of in the UK is the devolution referenda of 1979, which required at least 40% of the electorate to vote in favour. In Scotland this led to rejection of the proposal because Yes won a narrow majority on a fairly low (63.7%) turnout -- 51.62% of the vote but only 32.9% of the electorate. (In Wales the proposal was heavily defeated anyway). The Leave vote in 2016 was 37.4% of the electorate.

    Well, as I've said repeatedly, prior to 2015 the precedent in the UK (and, our Constitution is built on precedent and convention so there's little else to go on) would be for the proposed change to be a prominent part of the manifesto of at least one party, and for that party to obtain enough MPs in an election to form the government - thus giving a "first public vote" on the issue (for those with good memories, in 2015 after Parliament stupidly chose to hold a public vote I was saying that since they'd decided to skip that first vote therefore an approach would be for the 2016 vote to be an initial vote that could be followed up with a vote on a detailed plan before triggering A50). The UK precedent would then be followed by some form of Parliamentary approval - in the case of devolution for Scotland and Wales following the 1997 Labour landslide this was little more than agreement to hold a referendum and agree wording, the "gold standard" would be the 8 years and 2 Parliaments that the Scottish executive spent defining the question for the 2014 indy ref. If that precedent is followed then a yes vote in the referendum can be immediately enacted without the need for further parliamentary time (of course, the enacting of the decision will need time as there's almost always some level of negotiation involved - possibly something entirely internal such as the proposed change in the voting system to the AV system can be immediately implemented).

    I think there's a case that for an issue as complicated as leaving or joining the EU or UK, two public votes should be required as a matter of course, with the second one ideally coming right at the end when the final deal is known -- otherwise it's still something of a blank cheque. (I suppose though that this might undermine the negotiating position by giving the larger entity an incentive to be uncooperative). The electoral system (FPTP in particular, but I'm sure others aren't perfect) can elect a government with a fairly modest share of the vote, in a general election people decide who to vote for based on many different issues, and my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work -- leaving with a plan is better than leaving without one, but there would still have been a lot to negotiate with the UK and indeed the EU, so what emerged at the end might have been quite different from the SNP's plan.

    Actually the fact that when a country is joining something the details of the deal are known at the time of decision is perhaps an argument why a threshold/second vote/greater-than-50% majority is less important than when leaving.
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Many are probably barely aware that Northern Ireland is 'really' part of the UK. Certainly not properly British! I can still remember the red-top newspapers during the 70's and 80's questioning why British soldiers were in Ireland, and saying that if there were people in NI who wanted to be British, why didn't they just move over to England? I would say, too, that for a certain kind of Brexit voter the opportunity of sloughing off the liability that is Northern Ireland would be a most desirable side effect of Brexit.

    Probably not just Brexiteers -- I suspect that most people in Great Britain see Northern Ireland as at least slightly foreign (and perhaps, to be even-handed in potentially offending people, the Republic as less foreign than most of Europe). That's probably a subject that could occupy a whole thread of its own, though.


  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Shubenacadie, I can see what you're getting at - which may have more strength had voting been compulsory. As it was only about 70% from memory voted. The inference must be that 30% just did not care. So I go back to asking what percentage you consider should have been needed.

    I don't know (although one could make a case for saying that for a major change the pro-change people should have a majority over [anti-change + don't care]). The only precedent that I'm aware of in the UK is the devolution referenda of 1979, which required at least 40% of the electorate to vote in favour. In Scotland this led to rejection of the proposal because Yes won a narrow majority on a fairly low (63.7%) turnout -- 51.62% of the vote but only 32.9% of the electorate. (In Wales the proposal was heavily defeated anyway). The Leave vote in 2016 was 37.4% of the electorate.]

    That would be a way of getting a much better result than occurred. A compulsory vote would be even better.

    As to Doublethink's federation suggestion - very much yes, but as you suggest, steps n the process to make a better balance between the constituent parts would be needed. Perhaps a revival of Mercia etc?
  • my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work

    I've been wondering for a while how the Scottish border with England would work in the event of a hard Brexit followed by Scotland rejoining the EU... (or perhaps that magical technology will have come into existence by the time that happens...?)
  • Some further reflections on last night.

    The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is a horror show. Passing the second reading is not ideal but absent the rapid timetable, there is (I think) sufficient scope for Parliament to do its job properly. However as written it has major problems.

    I am not a lawyer, and I have not read it all. I have read some bits and I have followed some experts on line who pointed to various bits that are deeply concerning; on the basis of that, these are my concerns so far:

    1) There are large sections of 'The Minister will be empowered to...'
    There are all sorts of situations whereby it is appropriate to grant powers to the executive to do certain things. However, as every constitutional expert, lawyer and political expert will tell you - and anyone with a basic understanding of history and governance will know - this is a dangerous area. Granting unchecked powers to the executive is necessary sometimes but must always be carefully prescribed and justified.
    2) The way the Bill is currently written, it all but guarantees No Deal at the end of December 2020. Unless the UK government requests as extension to the negotiations by June 2020, there UK would leave the transition period on December 31st 2020 whether a long-term trading deal had been agreed or not. Remember that the trading negotiations that follow leaving the EU are going to be much more complex to agree than the WA. The same dynamics of diversifying from the EU, the need to maintain trade with our nearest neighbours and the complexities of Northern Ireland will not magically be easier. The fact that this is a long-term deal with probably decades of consequences means that it cannot be rushed (on either side). It must also be ratified by all 27 members of the EU. Hence it is lunacy to rely on the idea that it would all be safely concluded. May's WA had this risk - with Johnson's it appears to be the intended destination
    3) I follow a constitutional lawyer on social media, who said that he would need a minimum of 2 weeks to study it properly because of the complexity and the massive amount of cross-referencing needed - this Bill refers to and modifies literally hundreds of pieces of law.

    We were very close to this abomination of a Bill being rushed through and effectively passed on the nod by Parliament. This is why I feel very relieved this morning. But very concerned that we were ever this close.

    Let's be clear, I do not think there is any justification for any MP voting in favour of the timetable that the Government was trying to use: To force through such a bill without proper scrutiny would be criminally negligent.

    As I have said a few times, the only possible justification for doing so would be if the only alternative was No Deal. However this does not hold as the WA, in no way prevents No Deal - as written, it makes No Deal (just delayed) almost inevitable.

    Regards of whether Brexit is a good idea or not, regardless of the democratic arguments around how and when the UK should leave the EU, this Bill is an abomination. For a government to try to ensure it passes unscrutinised is the biggest assault on our democracy so far in the whole Brexit debacle.

    And how did Mr Johnson and the Conservative Party react to this? By pumping out a whole load of posters about Labour delaying Brexit. We remain a free country but make no mistake, in this small way we have a fascist government. I think the way to avoid fascism, is to not tolerate the small assaults otherwise you find yourself powerless against the real ones.

    322 to 308.
    It was far too close.

    God save the United Kingdom.

    AFZ
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work

    I've been wondering for a while how the Scottish border with England would work in the event of a hard Brexit followed by Scotland rejoining the EU... (or perhaps that magical technology will have come into existence by the time that happens...?)

    Well I wouldn't fancy manning a border post on top of Windy Gyle in February...
  • Alien, horror show indeed. And the media are so irresponsible, talking about MPs "dithering" over Brexit, or Labour blocking it. It's as if we're on suicide watch, and half the country is egging the suicide on.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work

    I've been wondering for a while how the Scottish border with England would work in the event of a hard Brexit followed by Scotland rejoining the EU... (or perhaps that magical technology will have come into existence by the time that happens...?)
    On the first point, by the time that the referendum campaign started there wasn't anything unresolved regarding what the Scottish government would seek, that had all been laid out in the 670p white paper (compare that with a mere couple of hundred pages the UK government has now managed to produce for a Withdrawal Bill almost four years after the start of the 2016 campaign - and wanting Parliament to pass that in 3d cf the 8 years the Scottish Parliament spent discussing independence, obviously not exclusively). Of course, since the Scottish government wouldn't be empowered to start negotiations until there was a yes vote whether those aims would be achieved was unresolved, there was no way that that could be different. A large part of the campaigning was on the feasibility of what was being asked for - the big two: would the EU allow Scotland to continue to be a member or would we need to leave the EU and then apply to join? would the plan to continue to use the pound work? It was pretty clear that EU membership wouldn't be an issue (Scotland meets the necessary criteria, and leaving the EU would have created significant difficulties with the border which could be avoided by a fudge of ongoing membership in some form of transition agreement to full membership on our own right, and if we were to leave I don't think anyone would realistically expect Spain to veto membership though that could take some pressure from the rest of the EU on them), and there were big problems with keeping the pound such that this would quite quickly become a transitory arrangement to be replaced with either a Scottish pound or the Euro.

    As I've said before, Brexit has created a significant change in circumstances which will require a significant re-write of the question compared to 2014. In relation to the border, in 2014 this was written on the basis of both sides being nations in the EU and thus would be a known quantity (functionally the same as the border in Ireland). If Scotland is in the EU and the other side of the border isn't (even worse, is outside the single market and customs union) then the situation becomes very much more complex ... and, I expect that this will take up a lot of time in Holyrood as a potential solution to this problem is thrashed out so that the question for the next referendum can be written, and along with so much more of the UK until the exact terms of the UK leaving the EU are known much of that work is on a "what if..." basis that may need to be binned.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work

    I've been wondering for a while how the Scottish border with England would work in the event of a hard Brexit followed by Scotland rejoining the EU... (or perhaps that magical technology will have come into existence by the time that happens...?)

    The Anglo-Scottish border is somewhat simpler to police and doesn't have the same political connotations as that in Ireland. There are surprisingly few border crossings, and most of them occur in open country. The cross border traffic is almost entirely long distance (hardly anyone needs to cross the border multiple times a day). Stopping to flash passports at Gretna on the way south is a minor inconvenience, and there is plenty of room near the major arterial routes, primarily the M6, for the necessary infrastructure to handle freight checks without causing Operation Stack style bottlenecks.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    my recollection is that in 2014 there were many unresolved issues about how Scottish independence would work

    I've been wondering for a while how the Scottish border with England would work in the event of a hard Brexit followed by Scotland rejoining the EU... (or perhaps that magical technology will have come into existence by the time that happens...?)

    In addition to what has been noted above, the complication with the Irish border is at least in part because the GFA allows anyone born in Ireland to define themselves as Irish, British or both and if necessary change that definition over time. The impact of this was easier to manage while both countries were within the EU.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    In additional, tragic, news: nearly 40 people have been found suffocated in a shipping container in Essex, apparently the lorry recently came through a Welsh port.

    It appears that people are now risking their lives trying to leave the country.

    Maybe it has nothing to do with Brexit. However there must be questions as to why Bulgarians, who have the right to travel in the UK, were trying or being smuggled through the country in this way.

    Whatever happened, it looks like we have a gimpse of something truly disgusting and horrendous.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I very much doubt that they were Bulgarians.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    The lorry is Bulgarian, but the occupants presumably aren't.
  • Ultimately if the Lords refuses to pass a Bill, the Commons can force it through using the Parliament Act (of 1926 IIRC, but that might be wrong).

    Sorry, just had to go back and correct myself here. I was obviously having a brain fail last night and there were no passing lawyers to correct me... shame.

    Anyway The Parliament Act refers to two Acts from 1911 and 1949. The 1949 Act modifying the original 1911 Act.

    Details of how these Acts work and other conventions around the Lords vs the Commons can be found here.

    AFZ
  • They key thing being that the Parliament Act would require yet another prorogation to bring it into use.
  • They key thing being that the Parliament Act would require yet another prorogation to bring it into use.

    Nah, I think given the nature of the politics of Brexit, I can't imagine the Lords actually blocking a Withdrawal Act Bill. It's one of those situations where they feel (rightly or wrongly) that it's a matter for the Commons only. I can see only minor interference from the Lords.

    AFZ
  • Rumours that the ERG want an election now, hoping for a big majority, and 5 years to completely screw the economy, other Tories more cautious. But an election before Christmas is a tight squeeze, isn't it? Talk of a 31 January extension, the ads are being prepared, are you doing everything to prepare for Brexit? Only 3 months to go.
  • So moving on from resting bitch face, it would appear that Priti Patel is asserting the existence of resting smug face.
  • Journos speculating that Dec 5 is the only available date for an election now, leading to the amusing spoof headline, "Tories cancel Christmas". A December election does sound weird, but then so does January. No doubt Boris expects to be garlanded with the Brexit laurel wreath, and not a funeral wreath. Tax the poor, help the rich!
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A December election does sound weird, but then so does January.

    Given what has happened in UK politics this year, can anything sound weird? A PM who clearly does not have the confidence of the Commons, the Commons itself spending a week voting against everything put forward (probably why there was no motion in favour of motherhood put forward) but equally cannot find anything on which it does agree, the list goes on.
  • Well, no, Boris got a 30 majority for his deal. Surely, this marks a significant step. I guess he is desperate for an election, but not a good time of year.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    I have still not worked out how the government can talk up Britain and yet keep our utilities and railways in the hands of foreign companies. If you believe in Britain why not bring these back into British ownership. The dreaded EU will profit from us Brits.
    Seriously it does seem odd.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.

    That tends to hurt Labour.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    I have still not worked out how the government can talk up Britain and yet keep our utilities and railways in the hands of foreign companies. If you believe in Britain why not bring these back into British ownership. The dreaded EU will profit from us Brits.
    Seriously it does seem odd.

    Are you expecting politicians to be consistent? Hello, cognitive dissonance, minus the discomfort.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.

    In general low turn out favours the Conservatives.

    However, we haven't had a winter election in a very long time. It may well be that the biggest effect on turnout is among the elderly who by a very large margin favour the Tories. Moreover, we have the whole issue of Brexit which will motivate some groups - i.e. both pro- and anti. Conversely, it might demotivate the large chunk of the population who are totally fed-up with the whole thing.

    I don't think anyone really knows what effect these conflicting factors might have on a putative election.

    The exact timing of an election is also the subject to significant speculation. Under the FTPA, there is a minimum time which is 25 working days after parliament is dissolved. If there's a motion to have an election that passes (2/3rd majority needed) then the 25 days starts straight away. If there's a Vote of No Confidence then you need to add on another 2 weeks.

    So, 5th, 12th, 19th December are all possible but I wouldn't bet on 19th....

    However, if the election was called by a one-line Bill then that would not apply.... but said Bill would have to pass the Lords and is subject to amendments.

    I don't think Labour will vote against an election so I foresee, the EU answer on extension this weekend, motion before Parliament next week, 12th December for the election...

    But I am probably completely wrong.

    AFZ


  • Jingle bells, jingle bells, Brexit all the way. Oh what fun, a referendum, but make it go away.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.

    In general low turn out favours the Conservatives.

    However, we haven't had a winter election in a very long time. It may well be that the biggest effect on turnout is among the elderly who by a very large margin favour the Tories. Moreover, we have the whole issue of Brexit which will motivate some groups - i.e. both pro- and anti. Conversely, it might demotivate the large chunk of the population who are totally fed-up with the whole thing.

    I don't think anyone really knows what effect these conflicting factors might have on a putative election.

    The exact timing of an election is also the subject to significant speculation. Under the FTPA, there is a minimum time which is 25 working days after parliament is dissolved. If there's a motion to have an election that passes (2/3rd majority needed) then the 25 days starts straight away. If there's a Vote of No Confidence then you need to add on another 2 weeks.

    So, 5th, 12th, 19th December are all possible but I wouldn't bet on 19th....

    However, if the election was called by a one-line Bill then that would not apply.... but said Bill would have to pass the Lords and is subject to amendments.

    I don't think Labour will vote against an election so I foresee, the EU answer on extension this weekend, motion before Parliament next week, 12th December for the election...

    But I am probably completely wrong.

    AFZ


    Things do seem to be going Labour’s way. They wanted a general election. They wanted it when there was no chance of no deal. Boris is going to miss his Hallowe’en date. Sounds good for them so far, but yes no one really knows.
  • TonyKTonyK Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    If Boris wants it, Jeremy will vote against it - no matter what it is!!
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.

    In general low turn out favours the Conservatives.

    However, we haven't had a winter election in a very long time. It may well be that the biggest effect on turnout is among the elderly who by a very large margin favour the Tories. Moreover, we have the whole issue of Brexit which will motivate some groups - i.e. both pro- and anti. Conversely, it might demotivate the large chunk of the population who are totally fed-up with the whole thing.

    I don't think anyone really knows what effect these conflicting factors might have on a putative election.

    The exact timing of an election is also the subject to significant speculation. Under the FTPA, there is a minimum time which is 25 working days after parliament is dissolved. If there's a motion to have an election that passes (2/3rd majority needed) then the 25 days starts straight away. If there's a Vote of No Confidence then you need to add on another 2 weeks.

    So, 5th, 12th, 19th December are all possible but I wouldn't bet on 19th....

    However, if the election was called by a one-line Bill then that would not apply.... but said Bill would have to pass the Lords and is subject to amendments.

    I don't think Labour will vote against an election so I foresee, the EU answer on extension this weekend, motion before Parliament next week, 12th December for the election...

    But I am probably completely wrong.

    AFZ


    Things do seem to be going Labour’s way. They wanted a general election. They wanted it when there was no chance of no deal. Boris is going to miss his Hallowe’en date. Sounds good for them so far, but yes no one really knows.

    Except they are 10 points behind in the polls.
  • The likelihood of Boris voluntarily putting forth a plan that is good for the UK is exceedingly low, so it might appear that way.
  • Light relief: there are reports that the German for Withdrawal Agreement Bill, is, Austrittsvertragsratifizierungsgesetzentwurf. I like it.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Turn out will probably not be high. He must know that.

    In general low turn out favours the Conservatives.

    However, we haven't had a winter election in a very long time. It may well be that the biggest effect on turnout is among the elderly who by a very large margin favour the Tories. Moreover, we have the whole issue of Brexit which will motivate some groups - i.e. both pro- and anti. Conversely, it might demotivate the large chunk of the population who are totally fed-up with the whole thing.

    I don't think anyone really knows what effect these conflicting factors might have on a putative election.

    The exact timing of an election is also the subject to significant speculation. Under the FTPA, there is a minimum time which is 25 working days after parliament is dissolved. If there's a motion to have an election that passes (2/3rd majority needed) then the 25 days starts straight away. If there's a Vote of No Confidence then you need to add on another 2 weeks.

    So, 5th, 12th, 19th December are all possible but I wouldn't bet on 19th....

    However, if the election was called by a one-line Bill then that would not apply.... but said Bill would have to pass the Lords and is subject to amendments.

    I don't think Labour will vote against an election so I foresee, the EU answer on extension this weekend, motion before Parliament next week, 12th December for the election...

    But I am probably completely wrong.

    AFZ


    Things do seem to be going Labour’s way. They wanted a general election. They wanted it when there was no chance of no deal. Boris is going to miss his Hallowe’en date. Sounds good for them so far, but yes no one really knows.

    Except they are 10 points behind in the polls.

    That's not quite true.

    Some polls have the lead at 15pts, some at 3. The polls are clustering depending on the model being used.

    However, I think this poll is the most important one:
    via ComRes, 18th-19th September

    Westminster voting intention
    ... if held after the deadline for Brexit has been extended beyond 31 Oct:

    LAB: 25%
    CON: 22%
    LDEM: 21%
    BREX: 20%
    GRN: 5%

    Two points of note:
    1. ComRes show a 3-4pt lead for the Conservatives in their normal poll.
    2. AFAICS from their website they haven't repeated this specific question since mid-September, but their main poll is essentially unchanged.

    Those figures give Labour 278 seats (vs Tory 209) and easily enough with SNP/PC to have a governing majority (regardless of what the LibDems do).

    So, whilst I am very nervous about an election; with the forced extension, BJ is very vulnerable.

    AFZ
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited October 24
    AFZ you saved me some trouble there. Thanks mate
    As has been said many times. Labour we’re behind in 2017
This discussion has been closed.