Over to EU on Brexit delay, Johnson says after parliament rejects swift decision

[Nigel Garvie]

36 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

The second reading has gone through with a majority of MPs voting for it.  A clear majority so they are not trying to stop the deal passing.  They are in favour of this Brexit deal in principle but want the opportunity to put in amendments.  Boris cannot be trusted, as has been shown over and over again.  Therefore time is needed to scrutinise the deal.  Why is that a problem?  What are the government scared of?

One thing certain people might be scared of is that the scrutinizing could result in the watering down of the Tory wish list. Workers right could be protected, and worse than that, horror of horrors the EU tax avoidance directive could be included in a Brexit deal. For the real elite (Not the Brexiteers fantasy elite) avoiding tax is what Brexit is all about. Wouldn't it be nice to know that when you paid money in the UK to Amazon, Google et al, the tax would remain in the UK to support OUR services, not disappear to the US or Luxembourg or wherever.

[kingdong]

14 hours ago, tebee said:

Not a chance of us leaving - you have to remember it's Brexiters who are trying to organise this...

The brexiters?not that majority rabble of oiks who don,t show subservience to their betters?

[kingdong]

5 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

One thing certain people might be scared of is that the scrutinizing could result in the watering down of the Tory wish list. Workers right could be protected, and worse than that, horror of horrors the EU tax avoidance directive could be included in a Brexit deal. For the real elite (Not the Brexiteers fantasy elite) avoiding tax is what Brexit is all about. Wouldn't it be nice to know that when you paid money in the UK to Amazon, Google et al, the tax would remain in the UK to support OUR services, not disappear to the US or Luxembourg or wherever.

Totally agree with your views on tax avoidance,perhaps you could please elaborate on "workers right could be prorected" what workers rights?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

All of which can, should and would, be exhaustively debated in front of the people in a General Election, rather than being frustrated by plots hatched behind  if not around the Speakers chair.

 

The "collateral damage" to use a ghastly American circumvention, being caused by the current Parliamentary antics, combined with the evident determination to deny an election until the alliance of opposition and Tory rebels has got it's way (which now looks like taking rather a long time), or even until the electoral climate is more favourable to both parties (which will quite possibly be an even longer time), will be a devastating, perhaps fatal blow to public confidence in our constitutional settlement.

The UK has a Parliament that is full of lawfully elected MPs and the next election is due in 2022.

 

So away with this election nonsense, let this Parliament debate and resolve a way forward on Brexit.

 

I’m really not sure what you are on about when you refer to ‘collateral damage’ or indeed ‘Parliamentary antics’.

 

The Prime Minister does not get to decide when the next election is; that is for Parliament to decide and the electorate, in their wisdom voted in such a manner to leave the PM without a majority.

 

We’ve already seen this PM’s disregard for Parliament, his lies, his hiding the Government’s impact analysis from Parliament and his hopeless record on votes in the house.

 

He knew the score, he wanted tge job, let him steward in it.

 

[JAG]

39 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

One thing certain people might be scared of is that the scrutinizing could result in the watering down of the Tory wish list. Workers right could be protected, and worse than that, horror of horrors the EU tax avoidance directive could be included in a Brexit deal. For the real elite (Not the Brexiteers fantasy elite) avoiding tax is what Brexit is all about. Wouldn't it be nice to know that when you paid money in the UK to Amazon, Google et al, the tax would remain in the UK to support OUR services, not disappear to the US or Luxembourg or wherever.

It is entirely proper that the sort of tax avoidance you describe should be acted against. Such policies should be carried out, in the UK, by the UK government, and not imposed upon us by the EU. The debate on what shape such policies would take would be part of the General Election campaign, and those concerned by such matters could take that into account when casting their vote.

 

Ironically, one of the major arguments advanced for leaving the EU is that large amounts of public (taxpayers) money, which could be used to fund public services, is transferred out of the UK, umh, to Luxembourg amongst other places!

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, kingdong said:

What "workers rights" ? Don,t you mean employees rights?i.e the right to get round minimum wage by making your employees " self employed."don,t call us,we,'ll call you----the zero hour contract.all made available by the glut of gig economy Labour courtesy of the freedom of movement.no wonder the leave vote came from predominantly working class areas.So away with your mock concerns about the rights of workers.

I strongly suggest you get hold of the book ‘Britannia Unchained’ read the diatribe it’s filled with them take note of who the authors are and where they are now.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, JAG said:

It is entirely proper that the sort of tax avoidance you describe should be acted against. Such policies should be carried out, in the UK, by the UK government, and not imposed upon us by the EU. The debate on what shape such policies would take would be part of the General Election campaign, and those concerned by such matters could take that into account when casting their vote.

 

Ironically, one of the major arguments advanced for leaving the EU is that large amounts of public (taxpayers) money, which could be used to fund public services, is transferred out of the UK, umh, to Luxembourg amongst other places!

Take time to look into the Tory plans for post Brexit tax regulations and if you have time revisit what Trump had to say about the UK taxing US businesses and how that might effect a post Brexit US/UK trade deal.

 

 

[JAG]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK has a Parliament that is full of lawfully elected MPs and the next election is due in 2022.

 

So away with this election nonsense, let this Parliament debate and resolve a way forward on Brexit.

There are three parts, pillars if you like, to the UK,s "constitutional settlement". Parliament, the executive (government) which it produces and the courts.

 

Leaving the courts out of it (!) Parliament, or elements within it, have effectively removed the executive, if not from power certainly from having any coherent effect upon the principal, perhaps only major issue which faces the country at present. Given that the Parliament was elected on a manifesto of taking the UK out of the EU, and that it has now effectively declared an about turn on that manifesto, then it should offer itself for election. That incidentally is the basis of the constitutional damage I referred to, but I think that you understand that, "confused emojis" notwithstanding!

 

The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was created to prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage - a more cynical way to look at it is that it was part of the price Cameron had to pay for Lib Dem support when forming the coalition. It was not intended to be used to allow a government to be reduced to impotence in the way this one has been. Yes the MPs are legally in place until May 2020, but they have effectively removed the Government and show no apparent interest, or agreement, in forming another. The FTPA does not forbid calling a General Election before May 2020. The alliance of opposition partys and Tory Rebels are doing so out of narrow self interest, exactly the sort of narrow self interest, albeit on the part of a government party, that the FTPA was designed to prevent.

[JAG]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Take time to look into the Tory plans for post Brexit tax regulations and if you have time revisit what Trump had to say about the UK taxing US businesses and how that might effect a post Brexit US/UK trade deal.

 

 

Again, something which should be examined and debated in a General Election campaign.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

Again, something which should be examined and debated in a General Election campaign.

Better still, never put the nation in the position of being desperate for a deal from any nation, let alone Trump’s America.

[evadgib]

BJ went out of his way during PMQs to explain that it was Parliament rather than him/Govt that had sent the extn letter to brussels.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

There are three parts, pillars if you like, to the UK,s "constitutional settlement". Parliament, the executive (government) which it produces and the courts.

 

Leaving the courts out of it (!) Parliament, or elements within it, have effectively removed the executive, if not from power certainly from having any coherent effect upon the principal, perhaps only major issue which faces the country at present. Given that the Parliament was elected on a manifesto of taking the UK out of the EU, and that it has now effectively declared an about turn on that manifesto, then it should offer itself for election. That incidentally is the basis of the constitutional damage I referred to, but I think that you understand that, "confused emojis" notwithstanding!

 

The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was created to prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage - a more cynical way to look at it is that it was part of the price Cameron had to pay for Lib Dem support when forming the coalition. It was not intended to be used to allow a government to be reduced to impotence in the way this one has been. Yes the MPs are legally in place until May 2020, but they have effectively removed the Government and show no apparent interest, or agreement, in forming another. The FTPA does not forbid calling a General Election before May 2020. The alliance of opposition partys and Tory Rebels are doing so out of narrow self interest, exactly the sort of narrow self interest, albeit on the part of a government party, that the FTPA was designed to prevent.

Your assertion that 'Parliament, or elements within it, have effectively removed the executive, if not from power certainly from...... ' is laughable.

 

The Tory efforts to execute Brexit has resulted in two very clear attempts to bypass Parliament; TM attempted to govern by executive order, an assault on Parliamentary Representative Democracy defeated in the courts (Sorry we can't leave the courts out of it); and secondly BJ's unlawful proroguing of Parliament, again defeated in the courts.

 

But there have been other examples, information being withheld from Parliament (repeated again with the withholding of the Government's impact analysis) and misleading statements made to Parliament. 

 

Even this last attempt to get Parliament to vote on a deal that MPs have not had time to scrutinise, the 'trust me gov, you don't need to lift the bonnet' second hand car salesmen attempt to bypass Parliament's duty to scrutinise anything they vote on.

 

All of these assaults on Parliamentary Democracy were discussed here on TVF, I have no recollection of you objecting to TM's attempts to govern by edict or BJ's proroguing of Parliament, I certainly don't see you complaining that the Government should allow Parliament to see the Government's impact analysis and be given time to scrutinise the BJ Deal.

 

All I see is you want your own way and you want it now. 

 

"The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was created to prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage" 

 

Yes it was, and I'm very pleased you accept that. Now please no more pretence that the reason BJ wants an election now is not for Party Advantage.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, evadgib said:

BJ went out of his way during PMQs to explain that it was Parliament rather than him/Govt that had sent the extn letter to brussels.

BJ says a lot of things, occasionally he says something which is true.

 

[JAG]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

All I see is you want your own way and you want it now.

You make no real attempt to either answer or refute the points which I make - how for example is Boris Johnson asking Parliament to grant him an election purely for party advantage, in the current circumstances,  when the opposition refusing to grant it is not?

 

Instead you come up with this phrase "All I see is you want your own way and you want it now." - which, given the regularity with which you post your opinions and demands for action on these forums, utterly impervious to any debate, and invariably full of contempt for any opinion but yours, is quite remarkable.

[evadgib]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

BJ says a lot of things, occasionally he says something which is true.

He also explained that he's doing nothing until he hears back from them. Meanwhile the clock is ticking...

[JonnyF]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Whats stopping him from having a clean break at the end of the month. Didnt he say UK is out deal or no deal?

Just leave.

Parliament legislated against it. 

 

Do try to keep up.

[elliss]

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

Whats stopping him from having a clean break at the end of the month. Didnt he say UK is out deal or no deal?

Just leave.

 

        Load of Bull <deleted>, from BJ.

        A man of his word , I think not ..

 

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, JAG said:

You make no real attempt to either answer or refute the points which I make - how for example is Boris Johnson asking Parliament to grant him an election purely for party advantage, in the current circumstances,  when the opposition refusing to grant it is not?

 

Instead you come up with this phrase "All I see is you want your own way and you want it now." - which, given the regularity with which you post your opinions and demands for action on these forums, utterly impervious to any debate, and invariably full of contempt for any opinion but yours, is quite remarkable.

You quote one sentence out of my extensive response addressing your post and then claim I make no attempt to answer or refute your points:

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Your assertion that 'Parliament, or elements within it, have effectively removed the executive, if not from power certainly from...... ' is laughable.

 

The Tory efforts to execute Brexit has resulted in two very clear attempts to bypass Parliament; TM attempted to govern by executive order, an assault on Parliamentary Representative Democracy defeated in the courts (Sorry we can't leave the courts out of it); and secondly BJ's unlawful proroguing of Parliament, again defeated in the courts.

 

But there have been other examples, information being withheld from Parliament (repeated again with the withholding of the Government's impact analysis) and misleading statements made to Parliament. 

 

Even this last attempt to get Parliament to vote on a deal that MPs have not had time to scrutinise, the 'trust me gov, you don't need to lift the bonnet' second hand car salesmen attempt to bypass Parliament's duty to scrutinise anything they vote on.

 

All of these assaults on Parliamentary Democracy were discussed here on TVF, I have no recollection of you objecting to TM's attempts to govern by edict or BJ's proroguing of Parliament, I certainly don't see you complaining that the Government should allow Parliament to see the Government's impact analysis and be given time to scrutinise the BJ Deal.

 

All I see is you want your own way and you want it now. 

 

"The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was created to prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage" 

 

Yes it was, and I'm very pleased you accept that. Now please no more pretence that the reason BJ wants an election now is not for Party Advantage.

 

 

 

Regarding your point:

 

“how for example is Boris Johnson asking Parliament to grant him an election purely for party advantage, in the current circumstances,  when the opposition refusing to grant it is not?”

 

I’ll remind you of what you said earlier about the FTPA:

 

“The Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) was created to prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage" 

 

I have highlighted the salient point in bold text.

 

The FTPA says nothing about Parliament (let alone the leader of the opposition) refusing to give the PM an election for whatever reason.

 

Given you accept the purpose of the FTPA is to ‘’prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage"  Where is the problem with the PM being prevented from doing just that?

 

The FTPA is doing exactly what it is meant to do.

[dabhand]

Some light hearted views on the current Brexit travails. I thought the 1st one was rather close to what is  currently happening.....

 

https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1106802515943800832

 

https://twitter.com/StefanLeifert/status/1186740992872988673

 

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1186733216251691009

[JAG]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Given you accept the purpose of the FTPA is to ‘’prevent a Prime Minister from going to the country for purely party advantage"  Where is the problem with the PM being prevented from doing just that?

 

The FTPA is doing exactly what it is meant to do.

The Prime Minister has asked for an election, not purely for party advantage, but because Parliament has decided that it will not allow him to follow the mandate which his party (just) won in the last election, a mandate which also formed a central part of the opposition's manifesto, and which they now have effectively reversed.  Of course it would be to the PM's, and the Tory party's advantage if they were to win a working majority, but the reason for wanting to call an election, entirely justifiably, is because Parliament has denied his government the ability to carry out that mandate. The decision is not based upon party advantage. I argue, that since the opposition is either unwilling or unable to form an alternative government, then holding an election is the proper thing to do. The FTPA puts granting that election in the hands of the leader of the Labour party. Having consistently called for an election for the last year, he now doesn't want one, why? Because, one must conclude (like Tony Blair amongst others), that he realises that he cannot, at present or in the near future, hope to win it. Therefore not holding an election is to his party's advantage. This mess, and the stasis which has resulted from it, is most definitely not what was envisaged when the FPTA was enacted. 

 

Any way, little point in continuing this debate, I am, in the present circumstances, in favour of a Conservative government with a working majority (they could well end up with a very large majority, which I don't think would be a particularly good thing): you however wish for a lLabour Government. A case, in this exchange, of "never the twain shall meet"! 

 

Good night.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

The Prime Minister has asked for an election, not purely for party advantage, but because Parliament has decided that it will not allow him to follow the mandate which his party (just) won in the last election, a mandate which also formed a central part of the opposition's manifesto, and which they now have effectively reversed.  Of course it would be to the PM's, and the Tory party's advantage if they were to win a working majority, but the reason for wanting to call an election, entirely justifiably, is because Parliament has denied his government the ability to carry out that mandate. The decision is not based upon party advantage. I argue, that since the opposition is either unwilling or unable to form an alternative government, then holding an election is the proper thing to do. The FTPA puts granting that election in the hands of the leader of the Labour party. Having consistently called for an election for the last year, he now doesn't want one, why? Because, one must conclude (like Tony Blair amongst others), that he realises that he cannot, at present or in the near future, hope to win it. Therefore not holding an election is to his party's advantage. This mess, and the stasis which has resulted from it, is most definitely not what was envisaged when the FPTA was enacted. 

 

Any way, little point in continuing this debate, I am, in the present circumstances, in favour of a Conservative government with a working majority (they could well end up with a very large majority, which I don't think would be a particularly good thing): you however wish for a lLabour Government. A case, in this exchange, of "never the twain shall meet"! 

 

Good night.

“The Prime Minister has asked for an election, not purely for party advantage”

 

Yeh right.

 

And good night to you too.

 

[kingdong]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I strongly suggest you get hold of the book ‘Britannia Unchained’ read the diatribe it’s filled with them take note of who the authors are and where they are now.

 

 

And I strongly advise you to read the ragged trousersed philanthropists.

[david555]

 

• James Crisp, Brussels Correspondent

23 October 2019 • 5:46pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/23/emmanuel-macron-demands-new-brexit-deadline-november-15/

Emmanuel Macron demands new Brexit deadline of November 15

Emmanuel Macron is set to force an emergency EU summit by insisting that any delay to the October 31 Brexit deadline can last no longer than 15 days. 

 

more...

[nauseus]

21 hours ago, tebee said:

Not a chance of us leaving - you have to remember it's Brexiters who are trying to organise this...

 

 

Of course we must leave. For most of this wasted 3 years this "organization" has been controlled by remainers. That's why we have had no real progress.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Better still, never put the nation in the position of being desperate for a deal from any nation, let alone Trump’s America.

So confirming that we should never have joined the EU in the first place.

[tebee]

21 hours ago, tebee said:

Not a chance of us leaving - you have to remember it's Brexiters who are trying to organise this...

 

31 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Of course we must leave. For most of this wasted 3 years this "organization" has been controlled by remainers. That's why we have had no real progress.

But we have a complete team of brexiters in charge now and we are still nowhere near finding a workable brexit that all can agree on. They have been trying to resort to tricks and subterfuges to get the current deal past without scrutiny - because they realize that once people examine it in detail they will recognize what steaming old pile of old dog5hit it is.

 

Brexit is OK in woolly theory form, but once you try to flesh out the details you realize it's internal contradictions and people say "that's not the brexit I voted for"

 

Washington post puts it better than I can 

 

Boris Johnson is discovering Brexit works only when it’s a fantasy

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/10/23/boris-johnson-is-discovering-that-brexit-only-works-when-its-fantasy/

 

 

Brexit is a rose with a lot of thorns which offers politicians a precious resource: the ability to claim they are representing the will of the people, as expressed in the 2016 referendum. It is however,almost impossible to deliver while keeping the whole disparate coalition of people who support it on board. Whenever it moves from rhetoric to policy reality, it pricks their fingers.

[david555]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Of course we must leave. For most of this wasted 3 years this "organization" has been controlled by remainers. That's why we have had no real progress.

Better face it that the only kind of deal will be accepted by the E.U. have to be something close to May's deal or present one …. or..no deal , you could see that this one was already accepted  only not the vote on timing to conclude it , or in the year 2030 negotiations are still there.

[Nigel Garvie]

10 hours ago, kingdong said:

Totally agree with your views on tax avoidance,perhaps you could please elaborate on "workers right could be prorected" what workers rights?

Fair point. What I was trying to say - possibly unclearly -  was that the EU has a number of rules on workers rights which the Tories would be happy to ditch, which is one of the reasons I expect, that so many support Brexit.

 

Promises from BJ on that front are worthless, I expect retaining them will come up as an amendment to the Brexit bill in the scrutiny stage. 

[SheungWan]

The Prime Minister has asked for an election, not purely for party advantage, but because Parliament has decided that it will not allow him to follow the mandate which his party (just) won in the last election, a mandate which also formed a central part of the opposition's manifesto, and which they now have effectively reversed.  Of course it would be to the PM's, and the Tory party's advantage if they were to win a working majority, but the reason for wanting to call an election, entirely justifiably, is because Parliament has denied his government the ability to carry out that mandate. The decision is not based upon party advantage. I argue, that since the opposition is either unwilling or unable to form an alternative government, then holding an election is the proper thing to do. The FTPA puts granting that election in the hands of the leader of the Labour party. Having consistently called for an election for the last year, he now doesn't want one, why? Because, one must conclude (like Tony Blair amongst others), that he realises that he cannot, at present or in the near future, hope to win it. Therefore not holding an election is to his party's advantage. This mess, and the stasis which has resulted from it, is most definitely not what was envisaged when the FPTA was enacted. 
 
Any way, little point in continuing this debate, I am, in the present circumstances, in favour of a Conservative government with a working majority (they could well end up with a very large majority, which I don't think would be a particularly good thing): you however wish for a lLabour Government. A case, in this exchange, of "never the twain shall meet"! 
 
Good night.

I wouldn't give the Hard Brexiteers anything they asked for until no-deal is totally off the table.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[vogie]

28 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I wouldn't give the Hard Brexiteers anything they asked for until no-deal is totally off the table.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

How can no deal be ever off the table when it is law, parliament voted for it. The only people that want no deal off the table are the MPs that don't want to leave the EU, and in doing so have weakened the UKs chance of ever getting a satisfactory deal. Shame on the duplicitous remainers for leaving the UK so vunerable.