Brexit matters

[eoff]

I tuned to BBC Parliament for a short time and the Tories who are happy were talking about sovereignty as the thing they were most happy about.

 

[Acfb]

Indeed we could have had a Norway style deal, but given the general hardening of position by the Brexiteers over the last 4 years, and the Hard Brexiteer Government we now have, that was never going to happen, I think the deal we have is really the best that could be achieved with this Government, and if you want people to blame for this position, Then I would pick Labour for electing Corbyn as Leader and their nonsense position on Brexit at the last election, along with a Teresa May Government which didn't have the numbers to do anything especially with a collection of Brexiteers that wanted a Hard Brexit and Remainers that didn't want to leave at all, along with many Remainers in the other parties that didn't accept leave at all.

In some respects you have to admire Boris because he has got done what he said on the Tin, even if that Tin is not to your liking

I am a Labour party member and I think this is somewhat unfair on Corbyn even if there are other more legitimate criticisms (now ironically voting against the deal) who was never mad keen on a 2nd referendum (unlike Abbott/Starmer/McDonnell etc) although he went through with it to respect party democracy.

I don't think the 2019 election was ever winnable for Labour against Johnson on his first outing (with Corbyn or Starmer as leader) although they might have saved 30-40 seats with a soft Brexit option as opposed to the 2nd ref and renegotiate policy.

For the record though I actually think this is the correct decision by Starmer and will enable Labour to regain some working class middle aged leave voters even though I have issues with him on factional stuff such as how he has handled Corbyn's suspension.

 

[Journeyman]

It's a difficult choice for Labour, certainly. I think they've done the right thing, because any risk of derailing this at the last minute would plunge us into even more chaos. We have to see if it works now, and Labour's job is to rip the Tories to pieces if it doesn't.

 

[37424]

I am a Labour party member and I think this is somewhat unfair on Corbyn even if there are other more legitimate criticisms (now ironically voting against the deal) who was never mad keen on a 2nd referendum (unlike Abbott/Starmer/McDonnell etc) although he went through with it to respect party democracy.

I don't think the 2019 election was ever winnable for Labour against Johnson on his first outing (with Corbyn or Starmer as leader) although they might have saved 30-40 seats with a soft Brexit option as opposed to the 2nd ref and renegotiate policy.

For the record though I actually think this is the correct decision by Starmer and will enable Labour to regain some working class middle aged leave voters even though I have issues with him on factional stuff such as how he has handled Corbyn's suspension.

But the point about Corbyn is that it wasn't just about Brexit it was about him as Leader, to me didn't really matter what the Labour Brexit position was because there was simply no way I wanted Corbyn running this country, and hence Johnson 80 seat majority wasn't just about Brexit even though many left wingers like to believe that, it was about choosing Boris as the least worst option. Contrast that to now where I don't have a problem with Starmer potentially being Prime Minister, but obviously I want to see what the policies are going forward.

Anyway the Bill has been passed in the commons 521 voted in favour, 73 against, No Tory's voted against, 2 abstained, only 1 Labour MP voted against, 36 abstained or didn't vote, Corbyn who of course isn't a Labour MP at the moment abstained.

 

[samxool]

Corbyn wanted Brexit more than Boris did. It was a surreal situation, and left remainers stranded.

 

[Journeyman]

Corbyn wanted Brexit more than Boris did. It was a surreal situation, and left remainers stranded.

I was horrified by his interview the morning of the result, where he advocated invoking Article 50 immediately. It was an utter shambles.

 

[edwin_m]

In some respects you have to admire Boris because he has got done what he said on the Tin, even if that Tin is not to your liking

Considering he was the one that put the label on the tin beforehand, not so much.

 

[SS4]

A few weeks ago I was downbeat at the prospect of No Deal, now I am reasonably optimistic about this deal, time for the MP's to vote for it and move on.

The plan worked then. Keep stalling until the last minute and people will clutch at straws in lieu of having nothing at all to clutch at

 

[37424]

The plan worked then. Keep stalling until the last minute and people will clutch at straws in lieu of having nothing at all to clutch at

Well yes you can look at that way and there maybe some truth in it.

 

[dosxuk]

Well yes you can look at that way and there maybe some truth in it.

The timing means there was absolutely zero chance for discussion or even the possibility of parliament sending him back to Brussels to try get something better. It was this deal or no deal and the way it's been foisted on the country should worry everyone, but it won't because foreigners.

Lots of comments around, including from Boris, that this is the best deal we could get from the EU. Utter nonsense. It's the least worst deal we could get. There are a multitude of far better deal options they would have been happy to negotiate on provided we had more realistic red lines. The whole one about the ECJ is nothing more than May holding a grudge from her home office days and getting told off repeatedly for breaking UK law.

Oh well, at least we've properly left now so the rejoin movement can begin. Wonder if they'll be any better at getting MPs elected than UKIP?

 

[Senex]

The timing means there was absolutely zero chance for discussion or even the possibility of parliament sending him back to Brussels to try get something better. It was this deal or no deal and the way it's been foisted on the country should worry everyone, but it won't because foreigners.

It was a truly fine example of the great British democracy at work, our constitution at its finest. This is how parliament examines proposed legislation in detail and holds the queen's government to account. As for Labour, well, they are joint owners now and must share the blame when things begin to go wrong (like the failure of eel businesses).

 

[arbeia]

So now, the dissatisfied should be the "Article 49's."

 

[21C101]

It was a truly fine example of the great British democracy at work, our constitution at its finest. This is how parliament examines proposed legislation in detail and holds the queen's government to account. As for Labour, well, they are joint owners now and must share the blame when things begin to go wrong (like the failure of eel businesses).

I don't recall all the business failures and unemployment caused when we joined in 1973 and other EC states agriculture and industry was able to sell here without tariffs, while existing commonweath supply chains were destroyed by new tariffs (commonwealth supply chains were much more favourable to us as they complemented rather than competed head on with our manufacturing and agricultural produce like Milk and Fish).....


...being seen as anything other than an acceptable price to pay for reaching the sunlit uplands.

I tuned to BBC Parliament for a short time and the Tories who are happy were talking about sovereignty as the thing they were most happy about.

If someone cannot even see that sovereignty is a fundamental and serious matter, then it is difficult to find any common ground to debate the issue.

It is one thing to claim that the benefits of the EU outweigh the loss of sovereignty. For a good few undoubtably they did, just as there were many who benefitted immensely from being part of the Roman empire. (along with every other empire that has ever existed)

It is another to start from a viewpoint sovereignty is of no or little value.

My primary reason for wanting Brexit was to place power back in the hands of people who have to win an election every five years from a small pool of about 60,000 voters. In crude terms they are bullyable, a few hundred letters on a contentious matter can sway them, two or three thousand will often panic them. Wheras the unelected Commissioner in Brussels is almost immune from public opinion.

Secondly it means that the so called Supreme Court, as of Friday is no longer supreme. They became supreme as, after the Treaty of Lisbon incorporated the EUs Charter of Fundamental rights and "constitution", most rulings in judicial reviews etc were based at least in part on EU law and this "consitution", so Parliament and therefore the government could do nothing in response and had to acquiesce.

The Supreme Court had become a defacto consitutional court basing its rulings on the EUs "constitution". No more. As of Friday, parliament can pass an act voiding or reversing their decisions, and as todays events show, can do so very quickly at times.

 

[nlogax]

If someone cannot even see that soverignty is a fundamental and serious matter, then it is difficult to find any common ground to debate the issue.

"If you don't agree with my starting viewpoint then I'm not even going to debate you".

Right?

To avoid any doubt here, I firmly believe the sovereignty arguments are petty, pathetic and plain ridiculous in the light of what is now at stake here in terms of the UK's future.

 

[Journeyman]

What difference does the sovereignty issue make to the ordinary person in the street?

We've actually now lost any influence we had on one of the most powerful organisations in the world, but will still have to follow their rules to trade with them.

 

[VauxhallandI]

How many of the blessed 52% had even heard of it until they were told about it in 2016?

 

[Senex]

Secondly it means that the so called Supreme Court, as of Friday is no longer supreme. They became supreme as increasingly, since Lisbon incorporated the EUs Charter of Fundamental rights, most rulings in judicial reviews etc were based at least in part on EU law, so parliament could do nothing in response.

The Supreme Court had become a defacto consitutional court basing its rulings on the EUs "constitution". No more. As of Friday, parliament can pass an act voiding or reversing their decisions, and as todays events show, can do so very quickly at times.

But without a Supreme Court competence (or the equivalent of a German constitutional court) there is absolutely no control over (or protection from) an Executive acting under the so-called royal prerogative powersas long as a party has a compliant and complacent majority in the Commons (which as we know can often "represent" a significant minority of the voters). The whole idea of an ultimate protection still being provided by the sovereign's powers was finally shewn for the nonsense it is by Johnson's trip to Balmoral last autumn.

 

[21C101]

What difference does the sovereignty issue make to the ordinary person in the street?

We've actually now lost any influence we had on one of the most powerful organisations in the world, but will still have to follow their rules to trade with them.

We have to follow rules agreed between us to trade with them.

We no longer have to follow their rules to trade with each other domestically.

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

 

[birchesgreen]

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

Well that's if manufacturers think its worth creating a different product line just for one country.

 

[21C101]

But without a Supreme Court competence (or the equivalent of a German constitutional court) there is absolutely no control over (or protection from) an Executive acting under the so-called royal prerogative powersas long as a party has a compliant and complacent majority in the Commons (which as we know can often "represent" a significant minority of the voters). The whole idea of an ultimate protection still being provided by the sovereign's powers was finally shewn for the nonsense it is by Johnson's trip to Balmoral last autumn.

Personally I think it the ability of a government to form a secure majority and get on with the job, although not without risks, is a benefit, as it enables serious and drastic reform to happen in a constitutonal not revolutionary way.

For The Queen to intervene directly, she would need to be sure to have public and armed forces backing. Legally she still has the Royal Prerogative powers exercised by Prime Ministers, it is only a convention that she does not exercise them. An example would be a government attempting to repeal the Represenation of the People Act to keep themselves in power indefinitely.

 

[najaB]

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

In other words, to hell with the environment.

 

[21C101]

Well that's if manufacturers think its worth creating a different product line just for one country.

UK manufacturer still makes the model I have and sells in in places like Australia, which is why the spares are still available, however they are no longer able to sell EU including UK. Not for much longer hopefully.

 

[Journeyman]

We have to follow rules agreed between us to trade with them.

We no longer have to follow their rules to trade with each other domestically.

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

Excuse me if I think that's an extraordinarily trivial reason to trash our economy, ruin our international reputation and sacrifice our rights to live and work in 27 other countries.

Honestly, that's absolutely pathetic.

 

[21C101]

In other words, to hell with the environment.

Nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with EU rules being skewed to favour the EU manufacturers lobbying for them.

Reducing the power of something dosent make it more efficient. Basic Physics. If it did places like Australia would have banned them too.

 

[GusB]

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

That's an interesting reason for wishing to leave the EU. Your view on this matter really sucks, in my opinion.

 

[21C101]

That's an interesting reason for wishing to leave the EU. Your view on this matter really sucks, in my opinion.

Its an example, not the only reason. Good pun by the way.

Excuse me if I think that's an extraordinarily trivial reason to trash our economy, ruin our international reputation and sacrifice our rights to live and work in 27 other countries.

Honestly, that's absolutely pathetic.

Your welcome.

 

[najaB]

If it did places like Australia would have banned them too.

Bwhahahaha. Australia? Doing something to reduce environmental impact? Pull the other one!

 

[Dave1987]

UK manufacturer still makes the model I have and sells in in places like Australia, which is why the spares are still available, however they are no longer able to sell EU including UK. Not for much longer hopefully.

If you and the 17m other Brexit voters do the same then BoJo had better bring back some of those decommissioned power stations back onto the grid very quickly! Kiss goodbye to our “grid only fed by renewable energy” claims as well. The reduction in power output was bought in to encourage development of new more efficient vacuums. Battery powered cleaners that take power from the grid more gradually weren’t included if I remember correctly. Yup that nasty horrible EU dictating to us that we cannot use old energy inefficient cleaning equipment.

 

[Journeyman]

Aren't all existing EU regulations going to be passed into UK law anyway?

And if you want an Australian vacuum cleaner, what's to stop you buying one from an Australian supplier?

 

[eoff]

With any luck I will soon be able to get a decent powerful vacuum cleaner again and cease having to maintain an increasingly elderly 2.4 kW one to avoid having to purchase one of the pathetically weak ones that the EU deigns to permit.

It is not so obvious that the reduction in power was so bad. Which? seemed quite positive...

Best vacuum cleaners 2024: tested by experts - Which?

Best vacuum cleaners sail through every task, but our expert tests found plenty that come unstuck on even the simplest cleaning jobs.

www.which.co.uk

I seem to recall reading that Numatic had developed a new motor that was just as efficient as the higher power model it replaced. This does imply that the manufacturers didn't care so much about efficiency before.

I think I was more annoyed by the effects of VOC regulations.