Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

Even if that weren't specifically known, we have a representative democracy not a delegative one. But agree, the idea that Ken Clarke is supposed to vote for Brexit seems bizarre.

Indeed and there will be very significant numbers of MPs who were well know to be pro-remain and whose constituents votes remain.

[jakswan]

Really? Can you substantiate that Donald?

I mean why would Michael Gove have to make a promise to introduce "any necessary changes" this morning if the safeguards are currently there?

The Tories argued that Lucas amendment would have caused confusion. I would always tend to side with Lucas on animal welfare but wouldn't misrepresent the other wide.

[jakswan]

Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/

I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552

The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.

Is factually incorrect, or fake.

[Rhiannon]

I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552

The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.

Is factually incorrect, or fake.

May is lying. She says that current legislation 'provides protection for all animals capable of feeling pain'. It doesn't. It only provides protection for domestic animals and doesn't include animals that are hunted, including foxes, deer and badgers. So she is free to reverse any hunting ban she feels like.

As for her promises to improve animal welfare...yeah right.

[jakswan]

I don't think it is semantics to point out that you appear to be massively underplaying the significance of the huge increase in people concerned about our relationship with the EU (which of course is about Brexit) compared to May 2015.

The government have created a monster, without any need to do so, and we are now all suffering.

To note that the £3billion on preparing for Brexit (a completely unnecessary expense seeing as we shouldn't be in that position) announced yesterday is on top of £700m already announced - so £3.7billion over 2 years. To put that in some kind of context - you could fund approximately 90,000 nurses with that money.

Point being that just because a tiny minority shout very loudly and scream and scream until they are sick about their little issue (the 1% who thought the EU was the top issue for the country) doesn't mean that the Government should pander to them with a referendum. The vast majority of the people in the UK were not concerned about our relationship with the EU, yet of course when you provide a totally unnecessary and unjustified referendum you 'force' them to be concerned whether or not that actually were. You create concern where there was none and generate division where there was little.

Yeah horrible terrible world going to end blah blah.

You don't want it to happen though right?

If you don't want it to happen I would suggest Labour have to change their policy on another vote.

[Aruntraveller]

I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552

The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.

Is factually incorrect, or fake.

Well I'll grant you that it is an evolving and confusing picture - but until they were called out by various welfare groups do you think the Tories would have put in place the apparent concessions they are now suggesting?

[jakswan]

May is lying. She says that current legislation 'provides protection for all animals capable of feeling pain'. It doesn't. It only provides protection for domestic animals and doesn't include animals that are hunted, including foxes, deer and badgers. So she is free to reverse any hunting ban she feels like.

As for her promises to improve animal welfare...yeah right.

This is getting derailed.

'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.

'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.

[jakswan]

Well I'll grant you that it is an evolving and confusing picture - but until they were called out by various welfare groups do you think the Tories would have put in place the apparent concessions they are now suggesting?

Don't know as I said with regard to animal welfare I'd support Lucas.

[Nearly Sane]

I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552

The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.

Is factually incorrect, or fake.

Seems to me a matter of opinion here, not fact. It's a representation of a position the Govt took, it's not a matter of fact .

[Nearly Sane]

This is getting derailed.

'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.

'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.

No, especially as you have edited trentvoyager's post here.

[jakswan]

Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.

Could go that way, I don't think so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html

Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.

[Aruntraveller]

Derailed from what?

I would have thought that one of the core issues about this whole BREXIT thing you are so keen on is how current laws get translated and transferred back to our sovereign government. You appear to have much more faith in this government that they will do the right thing on all the many complex areas covered by EU law.

I have no such faith - and the issue over animal rights is proof enough for me that they will be duplicitous. They will change the law for their perceived benefit and you can kiss goodbye to many environmental, health-related andconsumer rights if you don't watch them like a hawk.

[Nearly Sane]

Could go that way, I don't think so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html

Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.

Reads as a non sequitur to jeremyp's poiint

[jakswan]

No, especially as you have edited trentvoyager's post here.

I shortened it?

Add the word 'effectively' to the original statement and I'm good with it, in fact I'm good with it now, getting boring.

[Rhiannon]

This is getting derailed.

'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.

'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.

No it isn't. May has declared that "The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides protection for all animals capable of experiencing pain or suffering." She is therefore saying that the government's position is that animals that fall outside that - wild and lab animals - are not capable of feeling pain or suffering - are not sentient.

[jakswan]

Reads as a non sequitur to jeremyp's poiint

Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.

From the link

Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.

Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.

[Nearly Sane]

Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.

From the link

Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.

Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.

No, Jeremyp was making a point about why those MPs might be justified in voting against Brexit

[Nearly Sane]

I shortened it?

Add the word 'effectively' to the original statement and I'm good with it, in fact I'm good with it now, getting boring.

  Then it isn't fake news

[jakswan]

No, Jeremyp was making a point about why those MPs might be justified in voting against Brexit

Yes and I made a point as why they might not feel justified in voting against it.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/80937/anna-soubry-i-only-backed-eu-referendum-vote-because

Quote
Ms Soubry said she would vote for the triggering of Article 50 despite calls for her to “thwart it”. “I told people that if we voted leave, we would. And I can’t go back on that. It’s taken me time to get to this place. It’s against everything I believe in [but]…I’ve made up my mind.”

[ProfessorDavey]

Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.

From the link

Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.

Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.

I think the reason why that amendment was defeated was because it raised the very worst case scenario, whereby our exporters are charged import tariffs, while we had legislated to prevent us from charging import tariffs on goods imported into the UK. From the very same link:

"... Labour’s Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said the amendment was impractical and would not have kept the UK in the customs union. “Amendment would have stopped Treasury from applying any tariffs or quotas to goods in or out of EU after Brexit. It did NOT keep us in Customs Union as EU could still impose tariffs on us!”

Given that possibility it is unsurprising that there was significant cross party support against the amendment.

[jeremyp]

Could go that way, I don't think so.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html

Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.

What you mean is the parliamentary party is "pro-Brexit" but I would suggest that this is only because of Corbyn's stance. I think, if he had canvassed the membership and the MPs about Brexit, he would have found a majority in both camps for remain (assuming they didn't lie to him). Corbyn himself is a Brexiteer (hence his invisibility during the referendum) and that is what is informing the Labour position right now. Unfortunately, his opponents made him unassailable after the last leadership challenge and the general election.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit,.

No it isn't. The post to which you were responding was just laying out a justification for how an MP could practically oppose Brexit in spite of the referendum and keep their democratic credentials intact.

The sad fact is that MPs are putting their careers ahead of what they believe to be the best interests of the country and so they'll probably continue to support this shambolic process.

[jakswan]

No it isn't. The post to which you were responding was just laying out a justification for how an MP could practically oppose Brexit in spite of the referendum and keep their democratic credentials intact.

The sad fact is that MPs are putting their careers ahead of what they believe to be the best interests of the country and so they'll probably continue to support this shambolic process.

Noted, point well made.

Don't agree with everything said there but on MPs putting their careers first totally agree.

[wigginhall]

Presumably, the govt is hoping that the EU accept some sort of payment, e.g. £40 billion, and will accept that the Irish border is insoluble at the moment.   Who knows what happens next, as the question of non-tariff barriers seems to loom large, e.g. border checks, provenance checks, and so on.   For 'just in time' manufacturing, it sounds difficult. 

[Nearly Sane]

The disgraced Trade Secretary and his winning ways.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/karan-bilimoria-attacks-liam-fox-for-brexit-export-comments-2017-11?r=US&IR=T