|
Sep 2019
4:24pm, 26 Sep 2019
8,185 posts
|
simbil
HappyG, the LibDems were considering something along those lines, not sure of the details.
It would make sense. Stop the pretence of getting another withdrawal agreement before the 31st, get an extension ASAP and have a general election ASAP to give a new parliament a crack at sorting it all out. If the leavers get in with a big majority, we'll be out before xmas.
|
|
Sep 2019
4:26pm, 26 Sep 2019
5,300 posts
|
jda
As for the dates in the Benn bill, there is nothing in it that prevents Johnson asking for an extension sooner than that, at which point we could get on with having an election or else replace him with a GNU. But I reckon he'll choose to spaff out insults about surrender and betrayal instead.
|
|
Sep 2019
4:30pm, 26 Sep 2019
3,340 posts
|
Raemond
IIRC the 19th comes from the date of the European Council meeting rather than the queen's speech, as that would be the time at which the 27 could sign off this deal he claims to be making such great progress on (and, tbf, there really have been several meetings with some level of serious and technical discussion going on, that's not *just* spin and bluster).
|
|
Sep 2019
4:33pm, 26 Sep 2019
8,806 posts
|
larkim
On reflection I think that's correct Raemond. There was some logic to the date. Though nothing to say that the date couldn't be amended and the accompanying letter amended to ask for some sort of contingent delay in the event that no deal was agreed by 19th Oct etc.
|
|
Sep 2019
4:35pm, 26 Sep 2019
32,490 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
That's my point jda - the date in the bill was the *latest* at which Johnson would have to get the extension. It was made to be "a few days after parliament returned". That's now weeks away.
As he doesn't want it, unless he is legally obliged, I don't see him doing anything until absolutely the last minute. So how can it be brought forward?
The problem is, is it not, that parliament are also trying to be reasonable and give the gov't a chance to renegotiate with EU, in order to get a deal. It's only No Deal that the bill was designed to prevent. But if there's a strong feeling that Johnson gov't is NOT negotiating with EU in any meaningful way, then bringing it forward sounds sensible.
However, I'm not sure it would get a majority, would it? Because it smacks of *preventing A Deal Exit* not just preventing *No Deal Exit*, doesn't it? While I'm totally happy with that, I'm aware that a very large proportion of the country and probably also of MPs, are not?
|
|
Sep 2019
4:37pm, 26 Sep 2019
15,277 posts
|
Chrisull
It's a shame more than Stander don't come on here and support Leave. I can understand his need to step away. I do think our rhetoric goes over the top at times. And despite him not giving his reasons for thinking why Leave is still worthwhile and WHY critically that May's WA is not Brexit, I made a crack at this (hopefully without disrespecting or misrepresenting his view point) - which is that:
I believe from reading some of Steve Barclay's musings it is because we are still bound by many EU laws. I think this is the key remaining objection the most radical Brexiteers have. If we don't set our own laws, we don't have true sovereignty (or words to that effect) - and yes before anyone starts I know how few laws (less than 15%) come from the EU anyway.
I think this is an argument that has some merit (I'd debate,that it stops it from being Brexit, because I think it doesn't). However the followup is - given the enormous undertaking to extricate ourselves from EU laws, are we
a) rewriting all our laws from scratch (not even Brexiteer MPs say that)?
b) cutting and pasting across all EU laws (to some extent Gove has suggested yes), in which case what is the point?
c) cutting and pasting some laws, and rewriting some?
I'd guess it was probably c) - which then leads to the question... i) this is still massively time consuming - is there a real benefit and ii) would you trust the current government not to jettison laws we have and the majority think necessary?
And is a mandate for the above what can be suitably inferred from the Leave vote in 2016 of the referendum?
|
|
Sep 2019
4:37pm, 26 Sep 2019
32,491 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
And I don't get this chat about a Gov't of National Unity - there is NO WAY that you will get a majority (is it 2/3rds or just a simple majority) to agree a gov't of Lib Dem + Labour with Corbyn or even Starmer or Swinson leading. Parliament is fundamentally tribal - there just isn't enough trust or reasonableness, no matter how dire the situation.
It would have to be alien invasion or meteor striking the earth territory to get that kind of unanimity!
|
|
Sep 2019
4:44pm, 26 Sep 2019
15,278 posts
|
Chrisull
You don't need 2/3rds. 2/3rds is only to call the general election. And a simple majority earlier today voted to stop the Tory party having a recess for their conference, so currently I'd say there may well be a simple majority for that currently. It would include Tories (ex more moderate ones) as well, say Beckett/Clarke? That's how it would get people on board.
|
|
Sep 2019
4:46pm, 26 Sep 2019
32,492 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
And by the way, excuse my ignorance, but has anyone ever heard of the Co-operative party?! WTAF - 33 MPs?! (I presume they just count as Labour to all intents and purposes?) I just can't believe I've never heard of it! D'oh!  G
|
|
Sep 2019
4:46pm, 26 Sep 2019
32,493 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Nope Chris. I'd eat my hat (or contribute a small donation to a charity of your choice!) You can hold me to that. G
|
