Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Krill]

I think they are all forgetting that because of the Withdrawal bill that has already become law, Brexit will happen on 29/11/19 unless that law is revoked.

Can it be stopped? If that law was repealed or amended, then yes, it could in terms of British law. Whether the EU accepts that amending or repealing that law is revokation of article 50 is another matter, but it is not difficult to see a scenario where in British law the UK remains an EU member state but according to EU law we weren't.

All the arguments we see now about the withdrawal agreement is entertaining theatre, but without the DUP and 40 ERG Tories voting to accept that agreement (regardless of its merits) then 50 Labour MPs have to cross Corbyn and vote for it. The Lib Dems and the SNP won't, and SF will not take up their seats. And any amendments are seen by the Government as rejecting the deal anyway. All this only matters in the context of if Article 50 is revokable, because if it is unilaterally revokable, there isn't any outcome except a referendum if enough Tories vote for that (DUP could go for this, so only really need SNP+LD+Labour+DUP+enough Tories to make it work), the unilateral revokation via repeal of the Brexit Bill (Which if this doesn't need government intervention could actually be done without the referendum so same as before but would be political suicide), or a No Deal Brexit (ie, not enough votes for anything and we just fall over).

Oh, and Raab just resigned.

[Huinesoron]

As a chemist, I've just hunted through the full 585-page draft Brexit agreement to see if it covers the chemical regulations which allow us to, y'know, sell chemicals. The answer is, essentially, 'maybe'. Article 6 explicitly states that the regulations will remain in force in Northern Ireland, but doesn't make it clear whether that extends to the rest of the UK while 'a single customs territory between the Union and the United Kingdom shall be established'. This is a bit of a problem, since EU law doesn't just require the customs stuff to be sorted out - it also requires chemicals to be formally registered under REACH.

Article 41 doesn't bother to mention chemicals, but does claim that 'Any good that was lawfully placed on the market in the Union or the United Kingdom before the end of the transition period may: (a) be further made available on the market of the Union or of the United Kingdom and circulate between these two markets until it reaches its end-user.' So that's a partial answer: we can continue shipping previously registered chemicals to the EU. What if we want to make something new? What if we need to update our registration because our manufacturing process changed? What if we simply want to shift production to a different site? The answer, apparently, is 'ehhhhhh, I'unno'. So that's cool. 585 pages and they couldn't be bothered to clear up that crucial point...

I was also amused/horrified to find that the draft features both 'Annex 5'... and 'Annex VII'. Yep, they couldn't agree on which numbering system to use...

hS

[darrelljs]

And the thread comes full circle...I'll repeat my offer from 28 months ago...

You guys are more than welcome as the 51st state if going it alone proves too much .

Of course you waited too long and now you'll have to kick out all the undesireables before we'll take you.

Darrell

[Krill]

And the thread comes full circle...I'll repeat my offer from 28 months ago...

You guys are more than welcome as the 51st state if going it alone proves too much .

Of course you waited too long and now you'll have to kick out all the undesireables before we'll take you.

Darrell

Trump has already left.

[Cornflakes]

My apologies CF using consciousness there was an honest mistake on my part.  I meant to say sentience. 

Can you help me understand what to mean by sentience (reference to a definition or explanation OK)? I want to make sure we are discussing the same idea and not talking past each other.

I understand that, hense my earlier point about potential humans. Where we disagree is if it is already a human being at the point of abortion. 

I think this is indeed the root of the matter. Biologically it is human (alive, distinct DNA, distinct organs developing, separate nervous/circulatory/etc. systems). Reference https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/ar...-of-growth and the stages of growth. Even from month 1 the circulatory system is developing with the heart beating by the end of the 4th week. By month 2: "The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) is well formed. The digestive tract and sensory organs begin to develop. Bone starts to replace cartilage."

The disagreement then if I understand you correctly is that "it", although human biologically, yet lacks something [I believe you point to sentience] which is required in order to achieve status/rights as a human.

[MJW (ya that one)]

The EU and UK goverment both agree that UK cannot stop it without EU's bailing them out so the court will very likely rule in favor of them.

A second referendum would be a toss-up because it would be Jo Cox not being shot recently, "voting until you get it right" rage and EU's demands to come back giving leave a weapon vs hard Brexit being painful and the left's turnout being juiced because they know they could lose now.

If May is right that this is the best that can be done then there should be no second referendum because Labour ran on a platform on honoring Brexit during the election and this is one of the drawbacks. It's not fair to give them a do over (unless they give up the seats they wouldn't have won but stuff like that never happens).

[Krill]

The EU and UK goverment both agree that UK cannot stop it without EU's bailing them out so the court will very likely rule in favor of them.

Given that the whole point of the ECJ is to tell the politicians when they've got something wrong as a point of law I would not put money on anything. I don't believe it is unilaterally revokable, OTOH the author of the article stated that he believed it was revokable.

A second referendum would be a toss-up because it would be Jo Cox not being shot recently, "voting until you get it right" rage and EU's demands to come back giving leave a weapon vs hard Brexit being painful and the left's turnout being juiced because they know they could lose now.

If May is right that this is the best that can be done then there should be no second referendum because Labour ran on a platform on honoring Brexit during the election and this is one of the drawbacks. It's not fair to give them a do over (unless they give up the seats they wouldn't have won but stuff like that never happens).

The only reasonable referendum requires availability of unilateral revokation (or the EU just straight up says that they will agree with status quo ante bellum), and would be single transferable vote with 3 options: unilateral revokation, accepting withdrawal agreement, or hard brexit, if no option reaches 50% on first ballot, eliminate lowest tally (which would likely be the withdrawal agreement IMO) and see who won.

The point of the referendum is that after that, no one can say the public didn't have a choice, and we can put everything to bed for the next 50 years. And I'm pretty sure that there would be enough votes in parliament to force that referendum, but it would be high stakes. OTOH, there aren't enough votes for anything else except the current status wuo which is a hard brexit because that's already in law.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I guess everyone will just suck their thumb until the ECJ makes a ruling.

Abrams concedes. Last governor, senate or house races that I would not call are UT-04 and CA-21. I agree with Nate Silver that they are Lean R and Tossup respectively. I would guess that CA-21 is R because if I guess wrong PredictIt closed the market with Valado ® winning and that would be hilarious. So I ether guess right or something hilarious happens.

[Mr. Cairo]

The only reasonable referendum requires availability of unilateral revokation (or the EU just straight up says that they will agree with status quo ante bellum), and would be single transferable vote with 3 options: unilateral revokation, accepting withdrawal agreement, or hard brexit, if no option reaches 50% on first ballot, eliminate lowest tally (which would likely be the withdrawal agreement IMO) and see who won.

The point of the referendum is that after that, no one can say the public didn't have a choice, and we can put everything to bed for the next 50 years. And I'm pretty sure that there would be enough votes in parliament to force that referendum, but it would be high stakes. OTOH, there aren't enough votes for anything else except the current status wuo which is a hard brexit because that's already in law.

I'm not so sure about that (the bit I bolded), because it would rely on a majority of Labour MPs defying the whip (or Corbyn changing his mind, which seems unlikely), and I don't think anyone in the Labour party right now is prepared for that particular confrontation. So the remainer Tories, Lib Dems, and SNP won't try and force it, since they don't know how the remainer Labour MPs will vote.

The only way I see another referendum happening is if the Government falls and there's an election. That would force Corbyn to make a decision: stick with his own preference for Brexit, or bow to the wishes of his party and support another referendum. The real kicker for Corbyn is that it's the same people who got him into power as leader (ie: Momentum and other grassroots groups) that also want another referendum.

[Krill]

My understanding from Corbyn this last week,.is that he wants a GE,but if he can't get that he wants a referendum. And a GE is impossible.