Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Itssoeasy

She's trying at least. I mean it probably means sweet FA in terms of the vote tomorrow.

Christy42

Should they eventually have a session where one option has to be agreed on? No deal, remain or May's deal?

Have it in a few days and not leave until one option has a majority? Force them to make a decision instead of a potential sleep walk towards no deal and I can remain getting voted down as well.

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Nigel Dodds on sky news said that the Irish government have said that come March 29th there won't be a hard border on the island of Ireland. When did the government say this ?

listermint wrote: »

They didnt, its Nigel Dodds.

john9876 wrote: »

I can't believe Nigel would lie?

Leo said it.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar: “I have made it very clear to my counterpart in the UK and to the other EU prime ministers that under no circumstances will there be a border.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/leo-varadkar-offers-guarantee-of-no-border-on-island-of-ireland-1.3496592

Adamcp898

J Mysterio wrote: »

Parliament listening very closely though. Very little heckling etc. Seems they are taking it seriously for once.

Edit:

Theres the heckling! The moment she says: 'when the history books are written... did we deliver'.

Couldn't believe she decided to mention the history books.

Tell me how wrote: »

That is literally the plot of a The thick of it episode/series arc.
Season 4, 2012.

It should be embarrassing to those involved that they either let this happen, or planned it to happen. Amateurish.

The only plot-twist left now for me now is that any amendments bouncing around Westminster right this moment get added to the bill. The House then backs that amended bill tomorrow night.

And all hell and fury engulfs Westminster when the EU have the neck to flatly reject the fact that they have approved an amended agreement instead of the actual deal.

Donald Trump

What is there to stop the following from happening in the event that the deal does not pass?

1) TM revokes Article 50 unilaterally
2) 5 minutes later, she sends a new letter to EU invoking Article 50 again

Given that the European Supreme Court said that UK can cancel it without that having to be accepted by other members

and onwards to another 2 years of uncertainty and stupidity

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good opinion piece, IMO, in the Guardian basically saying that any MP that votes down the deal is lying to the electorate.

This is the deal they have been offered, the EU have said that this is nothing more they can do. So this, regardless of what may or may not have been promised or hoped for, is the outcome of the negotiations. This is what Brexit looks like.

So MPs either vote for this or accept No Deal. There is nothing else on the table. To claim that they simply remain, when there is no democratic legitimacy for that, is beyond ridiculous.

MP's still seem to be living in a dream land where the full extend of Brexit never needs to be faced. They had their chance to argue for remain during the Ref and failed to do so, and the people decided to leave. It would seem that even if you take it that people didn't understand the full implications of that decision, that TM's deal is therefore the best option to take.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/mps-voters-may-brexit-deal-tuesday-vote

It is true that there is no other deal with the EU out there right now because time has run out to get a WA other than the one Theresa May has negotiated. Her deal or no-deal is not the only options though, there is still the option of revoking article 50 and not leaving at all.

Leroy42

But would we accept if the Sail simply failed to impact the abortion ref for example?

I know the parliament is sovereign but clearly this was sold as a take it or leave it vote.

The Mps now need to either accept that, and TMs deal is the least worst option, or defy the public.

Not enough groundwork has been done to sell the idea of a 2nd vote that won't massively disenfranchise millions

Infini

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is there to stop the following from happening in the event that the deal does not pass?

1) TM revokes Article 50 unilaterally
2) 5 minutes later, she sends a new letter to EU invoking Article 50 again

Given that the European Supreme Court said that UK can cancel it without that having to be accepted by other members

and onwards to another 2 years of uncertainty and stupidity

Has to be in good faith not because they want a free reset otherwise the first letter would be invalid.

DOCARCH

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is there to stop the following from happening in the event that the deal does not pass?

1) TM revokes Article 50 unilaterally
2) 5 minutes later, she sends a new letter to EU invoking Article 50 again

Given that the European Supreme Court said that UK can cancel it without that having to be accepted by other members

and onwards to another 2 years of uncertainty and stupidity

In theory and legally it probably could happen, but the UK would really loose any last bit of credibility! EU would loose last bit of sympathy and UK would be presented with same deal!

Donald Trump

Infini wrote: »

Has to be in good faith not because they want a free reset otherwise the first letter would be invalid.

Even if that was true and even if it somehow affected the process, how about:



1) TM revokes Article 50

2) TM resigns as PM - "I failed to deliver Brexit"
3) General election
4) Brexiteer gets leadership (hypothetical) and restarts it




Legally, I don't think that there is anything to prevent it.




And your point about rendering the first letter invalid doesn't matter as they are cancelling that one anyway

intellectual dosser

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is there to stop the following from happening in the event that the deal does not pass?

1) TM revokes Article 50 unilaterally
2) 5 minutes later, she sends a new letter to EU invoking Article 50 again

Given that the European Supreme Court said that UK can cancel it without that having to be accepted by other members

and onwards to another 2 years of uncertainty and stupidity

Perhaps nothing legally, but the UK electorate (including Remainers) would go crazy, and TM would be at her local job center by Monday.

LeinsterDub

Donald Trump wrote: »

4) Brexiteer gets leadership (hypothetical) and restarts it

The first meeting of negotiators in this case would be the UK officials , a table and the current withdrawal agreement . If they where lucky , if not they'd get an even worse deal.

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The first meeting of negotiators in this case would be the UK officials , a table and the current withdrawal agreement . If they where lucky , if not they'd get an even worse deal.

No point being or appearing to be vindictive at that stage.

Just be consistent like they've always been. Offer the exact same deal.

BorneTobyWilde

If she really wanted what the people want then why not let them vote, let them vote to leave with this crap deal. At least that way no one can blame her when it all goes pair shaped.

Capt'n Midnight

john9876 wrote: »

I can't believe Nigel would lie?

Dodds , Farage or Evans ?

Hurrache

There's been an amendment tabled by Andrew Murrison which limits the backstop to the end 2021.

Many seem to think that if it's voted on and passes it will get May out of her hole and the vote will pass.

But they're willfully ignorant to the fact that they won't actually then be voting on the withdrawal agreement agreed upon with the EU!

Tell me how

Hurrache wrote: »

There's been an amendment tabled by Andrew Murrison which limits the backstop to the end 2021.

Many seem to think that if it's voted on and passes it will get May out of her hole and the vote will pass.

But they're willfully ignorant to the fact that they won't actually then be voting on the withdrawal agreement agreed upon with the EU!

Maybe, but it would allow them to say that the EU must accept this vote and sign off on the amended deal. And if not, that the EU are the ones who are causing the trouble.

What they have been saying all along but the anti-EU media could really run with this one.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

There's been an amendment tabled by Andrew Murrison which limits the backstop to the end 2021.

Many seem to think that if it's voted on and passes it will get May out of her hole and the vote will pass.

But they're willfully ignorant to the fact that they won't actually then be voting on the withdrawal agreement agreed upon with the EU!

A time limited backstop is not a backstop.

100% sure we've been here before

Hurrache

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe, but it would allow them to say that the EU must accept this vote and sign off on the amended deal.

It won't though, the deal is the deal, and like lawred2 points out, we've already been down the path that a time limited backstop is not a backstop.

And there's still people from Labour saying this evening that there should be a general election if the vote fails and Corbyn will be able to go back and get a better deal.

marieholmfan

GM228 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1084828400227938309?s=19

"No food, no channel tunnel"

I would say definately put there on purpose.

Oh definately.



Optics.

First Up

Hurrache wrote:

And there's still people from Labour saying this evening that there should be a general election if the vote fails and Corbyn will be able to go back and get a better deal.

What the UK really needs is a PM who can persuade parliament to accept this deal, because its the only one they'll get.

But it might take a while longer before that sinks in.

branie2

The actor Steve Coogan believes Brexit won't happen at all.

spacecoyote

lawred2 wrote: »

No point being or appearing to be vindictive at that stage.

Just be consistent like they've always been. Offer the exact same deal.

O'Brien made a comment along that line on one of his shows, somewhat jokingly...

Look for a 3 month extension
Get the staunch Brexit gang together (Boris, Farage, etc...)
Send them over to the EU & say "If you think you can do it better, come back with a new deal"
3 months later they come back with their tails between their legs & have to accept the original WA
Everyone moves on

1st dalkey dalkey

Every electoral result is superseded by the next one.
The referendum result was superseded by the general election result.
It also was pro Brexit, as both the main parties were at that stage, but the tone was changed.
That election result will be changed by the next one, maybe mildly as the last, or maybe hugely as in an about turn.

No election result can tie the hands of future elections. To suggest that holding an election is undermining the referendum result is ridiculous. Had the Lib/Dems, the only party advocating remain, won the GE, is anyone seriously contending that the GE result should not stand because of the referendum?

If Parliament gets deadlocked on this, a new GE should be called and the EU requested to facilitate that democratic move.

cml387

It's probably been mentioned before (hasn't everything:o) but one thing to emerge from the Brexit chaos is the need for some form of written constitution.

We seem now to have a situation where John Bercow is creating precedent after precedent.There is talk of the leaders of select committees now becoming a group to steer policy independent of government.

Hurrache

Cat will be set amongst the pigeons
https://twitter.com/williamcrawley/status/1084873867745787905?s=19

Podge_irl

Leroy42 wrote: »

But would we accept if the Sail simply failed to impact the abortion ref for example?

I know the parliament is sovereign but clearly this was sold as a take it or leave it vote.

The Mps now need to either accept that, and TMs deal is the least worst option, or defy the public.

Not enough groundwork has been done to sell the idea of a 2nd vote that won't massively disenfranchise millions

Well, the Dail didn't have a choice because it was a carefully worded and deliberate constitutional amendment and the ultimate outcome was known beforehand. The Dail can, and indeed have, altered the proposed legislation from before the referendum. Ultimately this whole debate boils down to "you ask a stupid question..."

You are not using the word "disenfranchise" correctly either.

judeboy101

Hurrache wrote: »

Cat will be set amongst the pigeons
https://twitter.com/williamcrawley/status/1084873867745787905?s=19

But leo has the support of the EU and they won't make us put up borders, Leo said so. Leo wouldn't lie to us, would he?

Hurrache

judeboy101 wrote: »

But leo has the support of the EU and they won't make us put up borders, Leo said so. Leo wouldn't lie to us, would he?

Everyone with a bit of intelligence should have been aware that in the event of a no deal that border checks will be required, only the naive believed otherwise.

eire4

judeboy101 wrote: »

But leo has the support of the EU and they won't make us put up borders, Leo said so. Leo wouldn't lie to us, would he?

I am no fan Varadkar but it is and has been very clear all along. If there is no deal upon their exit from the EU there will be a border. The fault for that lies 100% with the British and not either the EU nor Varadkar.