Let's not forget Brexit

If anyone thinks that a member of the Bexit cult is unlikely to sum up a minute interview with Ken Clarke objectively you may like to hear the whole interview

I'd very much like to GG but the BBC website insists I have logins and passwords (no doubt they want to monetise me...) and I CBA to jump through hoops at this time of night.

Are you able to give your impression of what KC said?

Perhaps he is one of the first to realise that telling lies tends to rebound on you Jen.

Maisie:

It was mention KC had signed an amendment to the Withdrawal Bill and he was asked what happens if there is no deal. Would he and others 'and there are an awful lot of you' try to bring about another referendum. KC explained what he thought of referendums - silly was the simplest bit. He talked about them being the wrong way to solve complex problems. He preferred parliamentary democracy. He wanted to make it clear that only and handful of far-right Brexiteers thought no deal was desirable and even preferable to being in the biggest free trade area in the world. He went on to say they talk about a bright blue future when things that will fall into our laps (my words).

John Humphries tried to suggest that the rest of the world does okay and KC began to rebut this but JH talked over him to suggest we could have a deal with the EU. KC pointed out that this would only be if we accept that we have to reach agreements on rules. JH did his impersonation of a kettle coming to the boil as he often does and KC added that the Eurosceptics reject 'all that'. They reject being bound by treaty to common regulations or rules and that they say that when they can think of some regulations they want to change they will change them.

JH then pointed out that people voted for sovereignty to which KC said they voted for a whole variety of reasons, sensible and protest. Nobody voted after a sensible debate on things like the single market, the customs union, what rules does the WTO use if you don't have a proper free trade agreement. He said TM had to persuade Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier, who he thought were perfectly reasonable people, not hostile to us, that the government is capable of agreeing and does have a policy it can deliver. He felt that we had to keep the maximum amount of open trade, fewer tariffs and biggest agreement on regulations so we can all trade freely with each other.

JH then asked what would happen next if TM failed to do that. He asked if we found ourselves in the end stages of this with no agreement would that mean that Parliament would say we can't agree so there will be no withdrawal. KC said we couldn't revive the Royal Prerogative and Parliament would have to agree for it to be passed. He said that Parliament has passed a vote to pull out which he regretted but accepted (I have heard him say this before). He then talked about the Florence speech, and the transition period when we trade on the rules we have had, continue as we are until we know exactly where we are going, with a smooth transition to out.

JH then repeated his question about if that is not acceptable to Parliament - what then? KC thought his amendment which included this would be accepted and would reassure the other governments in the EU. JH came back to what happens if Parliament, at the end of the day, rejects a 'no deal' KC thought no deal would have a catastrophic affect in the short term on the economy and teeth gritting in the face of this was discussed. KC said we mustn't be affected by bizarre suggestions of the lion roaring and the protectionist countries all being prepared to open their markets to us. He talked of fantasy and La La Land.

JH then said "can Parliament veto a 'no deal'" to which KC replied that it can veto anything it wants but the vast majority of people trying to earn their living would want us not to end up with 'no deal'. More pushing from JH about whether Parliament has the power to veto with the consequence that we would just stay in the EU. KC said that constitutionally it does. He added that it this not the aim of his amendments. He accepts that the vast majority of parliamentarians think (note he didn't say 'are') they are bound by the referendum to leave the political institutions of the European Union. What parliament will want to do will be to protect a list of things including the economic advantages, security, etc. He felt Parliament will want to bind in the far-right.

Hope this helps.

gg yes I also heard the interview, and thanks for reproducing it -it is worth a read.

Listening to Today this morning.

Struck by the fact that Maybot had dinner with the EU Commisioners last night hoping to appeal to them to accept that we have progressed the negotiations sufficiently.

So they are not looking for a figure in what we are prepared to pay, but looking for us to outline the areas in which we accept we have a liability. Interesting. What on earth has Davis been doing since March if this has been the major sticking point? If any of my staff had spent 7 months over this I would begin seriously to question their ability.

What I actually suspect is going on is that the Tory cabinet is so utterly divided that he simply can’t progress under any circumstances. They all need kicking up the ass and told to stop being so bloody self indulgent and turn their attention to this countries interests both socially and economically.

Country’s

Thanks so much for that, GG.
(You make me feel rather ashamed of my refusal to 'register' on the BBC site when you've clearly taken so much time to transcribe the interview )

Do I detect a certain amount of 'party before country' in there?

MaizieD you are amusingly predictable.
Ignoring the fact that one or two made fun of a poster’s spelling , which prompted my remark ‘that perhaps dj would now be kinder,since she makes mistakes of her own,
It was actually done because they didn’t like what the poster was saying, therefore was childish and malicious.

Much better for Gransnetters to listen to the Ken Clarke interview than your somewhat personalised version of it GGM2
Up to now, he has been full of fighting talk, and now he has accepted it will happen ( he doesn’t like it of course!)

My 'personalised' version was little short of verbatim lemongrove. Suggest you do the same and then we can see just how personalised it was.

Brexit cult?? As opposed to Remoaner cult I suppose.

It needs to be listened to, as you omit all the actual questions by JH.

I was relieved at what was said in the interview expecially for it to be reinforced that the brextremists are in the extreme minority, and that parliament would and should prevail. Brextremists certainly shout a lot though don’t they!,

I have a new word for the Brexistremists demands

Brexocalypse

As being used on MN

Maisie it took me ages to decide to register and it does annoy me.

If I get the chance I think I will drop an email to Today - although I find it difficult to find the addresses these days - and suggest we could do with the text, at least of the 8.10 interview.

I definitely heard the need to repeat the party line of "acceptance" of the vote. It was something he was avoiding in the first instance and in the second, as I reported, he said that "the vast majority of parliamentarians think they are bound by the referendum" not that they are. As a QC he will be well aware that they are not actually 'legally' bound; the referendum was only advisory.

To me, it sounded as if he was avoiding a direct answer to JH's question about Parliament being able to veto a 'no deal' deal and, when finally cornered, he sounded to me like a man of the law who could not tell a lie. He was quite short in tone when he "it can veto anything it wants" as if he didn't want to say it and then went very quickly to ameliorate what might be drawn from that.

Obviously these - as opposed to the reportage above - are my views and others may hear it differently.

[gg]I think your reporting was totally fair and I would challenge anyone if they can point to an instance of it being incorrect.

Further to our liability to the EU.

The sticking point does not seem to be our acceptance that we should continue to pay until the end of the current budget. That has been accepted.
It is our liability relating to things like pensions etc. That is the area which Davis has so far not be willing to make clear.
The reason being that until we know which particular agencies etc we will continue to belong to after Brexit along with the particular trade deal, we can’t know for sure what our liability will be.

I can see our point in that, but am willing to stand corrected.

To me a cult will insist they are right about what they have chosen to worship and that it is heretical for anyone to disagree. We have certainly seen this with the Brexemists who have been trying to deny democracy when talking about the worshipful vote.

Members of a cult will, and in the Brexit instance do, show unquestioning obedience to the thinking of the cult even though its pronouncements may be arbitrary, petty or pointless.

The commonality in those joining a cult is they are at some transitional phase in their life: something has gone and not been replaced. They are, in some way, dislodged from their social group and looking for another. I would have thought the fact that the majority of voters for Brexit are old enough to have gone through retirement would put them in exactly that group.

Having been addressed since the referendum as if I am some sort of heretic by Brextremist I am becoming more and more convinced that it does bear the hallmarks of a cult.

As remain is the status quo I think you would be hard put to say the same about people supporting that however bitter you feel about it Lemons, and however much you may see not backing the sainted majority as heretical.

May I hand you this mirror GGM2 ?as another poster said to you not that long ago.

It needs to be listened to, as you omit all the actual questions by JH

That a bit rich Lemons. Bitterness in every post still I see and still the need to dictate how others behave or in this case how I type up what I am listening to. It took me quite long enough to do what I did and it was certainly not done for your benefit.

Listen to it and type it up verbatim if you are querying what I reported otherwise what you are saying simply has no credence.

Two facts - the referendum was advisory, not binding and Article 50 can be revoked.

All it needs is for parliamentarians to have the courage of their convictions, do their duty to serve the best interests of their constituents and the country and refuse to be bullied by the brextremists and the right wing gutter press.

This is not about the Remainers being able to say "I told you so" after brexit has damaged our country and robbed our grandchildren of the future which should have been theirs. It is about preventing the disaster from happening.

I have everything crossed varian

I can’t really believe that such a small minority with self interests that go beyond national interest will win the day.

Adding the word ‘bitter’ simply because I chose the username Lemongrove to your every post may amuse small minds, but in reality I am anything but ‘bitter’ about Brexit.
I am very happy to be leaving the EU as are all who voted that way on GN, and I suggest that it is yourself and others who voted Remain that are the bitter ones.
Do as Ken Clarke has done, accept that we are leaving the EU but hope for the best possible deal and future for Britain.

I couldn't agree more varian but the attacks will continue against common sense while the holy grail of Brexit is held up by some. It sounded to me that even though Ken Clarke - a QC - was fully aware it was only advisory he found it hard to say because it is not his parties line.

How many people have you heard saying the will of the majority must be obeyed - even if it will bring the country to its knees.

One thing I think will never happen in this country again is another referendum. Ken Clarke was clear and I absolutely agree with him that it should never taken place in the first place. Something so complicated and convoluted can never be boiled down to a yes/no vote and should never had taken place, as the result is entirely meaningless given that the vote behind yes/no was of itself so varied and uninformed.

To my mind it cannot be seen as a legitimate way to decide the UKs future.

The “will of the people” is therefore meaningless in this instance. And the whole of the U.K. should be taken into account.