Another Brexit Defeat

[sp1814]

Is it now inevitable, that the Brexit that many people voted for, will never ever happen?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/may/08/brexit-boris-johnson-accuses-remain-voting-cabinet-colleagues-of-reviving-project-fear-politics-live

Incidentally, the URL above doesn't quite match the story.

[ToraToraTora]

SP: //The referendum question was this:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?”// - you may have missed it SP but it also said, "the government will implement your choice" , so kin well get on with it. It is a binary choice all the other BS is remoaners trying to make it difficult because they lost, end of.

[jim360]

One would have thought it's up to the government to work out how to implement the choice made. While it's clear that everyone here has their own ideas for how that is to be achieved, perhaps it's also fair to say that they've never had the opportunity to test those ideas in practice?

Put another way, maybe the reason that May et al have dragged things out for so long is because it's rather a lot more complicated to leave the EU than you lot are giving it credit for...

[ichkeria]

There has never been an agreement on what ‘Brexit’ actually means. Therefore the question doesn’t really mean anything. There is a general agreement by many including those who support ‘Brexit’ that simply ‘leaving’ is not w very sensible idea.
For many on referendum day ‘Brexit’ simply was a slightly more concise version of ‘Up yours!

[ToraToraTora]

ich; "There has never been an agreement on what ‘Brexit’ actually means. " - seems very clear to me British, that's us, Exit, from the latin, exitus - or going out. QED we leave the EU, that means we ar no longer in the EU or any of it's parts, it means they no longer have sovereignty over us to impose rules on Bananas etc. Surprised you find it so difficult ich. We should have left with no deal at all then started negotiations for trade deals like we do for any other country. This is classic remoaner tactics hanging on to their beloved cabal come what may, disgusting.

[Jackdaw33]

'Up Yours' was and is precisely my sentiment.

[jim360]

What rule on bananas?

And don't say that they had to be straight... that was, is, and always will be a myth. The sort of anti-EU propaganda that no doubt contributed to the Leave vote.

[ToraToraTora]

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94 - 1994 specified the curvature of bananas.

[jim360]

Except that didn't ban bendy bananas, it was just a way of classifying their standards. The rest of said regulation referred to other qualities such as size, ripeness, cleanliness etc.

[ToraToraTora]

I never claimed it did jim, just one example of the EU regs on fruit and veg.

[Jackdaw33]

You cannot get decent-tasting Jersey Royals these days since the EU banned them from being stored in seaweed, which gave them their distinctive taste.

[New Judge]

There’s really quite a straightforward way to consider what voters were voting for in the referendum.

As far as this question goes there are only two types of nation – those who are EU members and those who are not (which I like to term “normal” nations). Apart from the four members of the European Free Trade association (EFTA) there’s not really anything in between.

EFTA has a curious history, being firstly a “waiting room” for nations seeking EU membership but more latterly it has become the repository for potential members who have abandoned their quest for full EU membership or who never had any intention of joining the circus. EFTA members are not members of the EU’s Customs Union and are free to pursue their own trade deals with whomsoever they wish but they are Single Market members. Accordingly they must comply with the EU legislation that governs that market and must accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ in disputes involving the Single Market.

When the binary question was asked of the electorate in the referendum, the choice was therefore quite clear: EU Member nation or normal nation? The question of our future relationship was not a consideration in the referendum and should not be a consideration in our departure. There is no reason to believe the UK should be afforded any special privileges not given to other normal nations; indeed “Project Fear” (Mark 1) made it abundantly clear that no such special arrangements would apply. Now, Project Fear (Mark 2) seems to suggest that we cannot leave unless such privileges are afforded. Any that are provided are a bonus but should not be a hindrance to our departure but to suggest the electorate did not know the consequences of voting to leave is simply tosh.

[jourdain2]

We who voted to leave were all aware of the consequences. Thank you, N.J. for your erudite exposition. It was all spelt out VERY clearly during the campaign. 'Leave' was to vote for leaving all the EU constraints, simple as that. I voted to leave them and I expect that to happen - otherwise Democracy is dead and resentment and chaos will follow.

[sp1814]

NJ

You posited:

//The question of our future relationship was not a consideration in the referendum and should not be a consideration in our departure.//

Which is like saying, “I’m divorcing my partner, however the terms of the divorce, the settlement of alimony, the question of who has custody of the children and the division of assets should not be considered at the time of the divorce.

I think they are absolutely central.

And the fact is - those who wanted to leave want totally different kinds of Brexit. You have those who want to walk away with no deal, and you have those who want a negotiated exit with a ‘soft landing’.

It’s a hopeless mess right now. I challenge any Brexiter to stand up and say that they think it’s all going smoothly.

It really, really isn’t.

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, sorry to disappoint you but the Parliament Acts cannot be invoked and this explains why,

"46. Following the 2017 General Election, the Conservative government decided to extend the first session of the new parliament to two years, rather than the usual 12 months.

This was to allow both Houses time to consider the legislation necessary to carry out Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

It is understandable that the government decided that it needed an extended session to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; however, this means that the Parliament Acts cannot be used to ensure the passage of that Bill or other Brexit-related legislation before the expected deadline for the negotiations in March 2019.

47. Erskine May states:
it is provided that a bill which is passed by the House of Commons in two successive sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not), and which, having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions, shall, on its rejection for the second time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to Her Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified to it.

One year must elapse between the second reading of the bill in the House of Commons in the first of these sessions and its passing in the House of Commons in the second session.

As the current session has been extended beyond the expected deadline for Article 50 exit negotiations the Parliament Acts cannot be used by the government as there will only be one, rather than the necessary two sessions.

However, it is unclear what effect, if any, the announcement of a two-year ‘transitional’ period may have, if the Withdrawal Bill is delayed by the House of Lords."

[Jackdaw33]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term 'session'. The Queen opens parliament each year and each year is a separate session. Later this year in autumn or thereabouts it will be a different session to the present one so there is no reason why the Parliament Act cannot be enforced.

[Kromovaracun]

People seem to forget that there were two different Leave campaigns. There was VoteLeave - the "official" one and Leave.Eu.

Both of them were about equal in reach, and promoted completely different ideas of what Leaving would be. Leave.Eu advocated total departure and stressed immigration, while VL said essentially anything it needed to. One of the organisers for VL in the area I was living in sincerely believed that EEA membership would be the best and most likely outcome - that was what he thought he was voting for.

That tends to provoke scoffs on here, but that doesn't make it less true. There were fundamentally different conceptions of what Brexit would mean built into the very structure of the campaign. You may well understand why you voted for Brexit and what you think it means. It probably looks unassailable to you, and perhaps even to everyone you know. But the plural of anecdote is not data. That feeling is also true for the guy who voted Leave thinking it would mean something completely different.

If it helps, imagine if Remain ran two campaigns, one "official" one for keeping things as they were, and one "hard Remain" which advocated adopting the Euro, replacing the national anthem with Ode to Joy, joining Schengen etc.. completely different but both campaigned for the same thing. Then imagine Remain won and the government took it as a win for that second group and tore itself apart over those policies. We're in the mirror version of that.

[THECORBYLOON]

JD, "the Conservative government decided to extend the first session of the new parliament to two years, rather than the usual 12 months."

The session IS normally twelve months but the Tories extended it to two years.

[THECORBYLOON]

JD, if you Google "2018 State Opening of Parliament" you'll find there's no date because it was cancelled following the extension.

[Jackdaw33]

But there are still four more sessions of this parliament providing it runs its full term. Whilst the Parliament Act may not be invoked in 2019 it can be in 2020. What's a year's delay? I've been waiting for 45 years to see this day.

[RobNorth]

All very entertaining for the masses, but while these amateur politicians would like us to think they are "negotiating" they have neither the time nor expertise to do so, indeed many would struggle to spell it.
It's the seventeen hundred or so "Sir Humphrey" professionals that are doing all the real stuff and as always they will be probably be giving someone across the channel a right royal stitching up.