Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

You would hope that Bercow would not allow this to happen as it would just be wasting time. How would anyone change their minds in 3 days time? The Grieve amendment is really good in that May cannot delay until 3 weeks later and have the pressure of no-deal force MPs to vote for her deal out of fear. That doesn't change it into a good deal, just makes it the less worse option that they can take, and surely taking the least worse option is not something MPs should be considering.

The best deal out there is still staying as part of the EU and having their rebates and opt-outs they currently have. If you have a deal where you have no say in the regulations or rules you have to follow, as May's deal, it is worse than they currently have.

My understanding is that May doesn't have to actually detail out a Plan B in three days, certainly not something that she is then forced to stick to.

It can be as fluffy as simply saying she is going to work even harder and go back to the EU for further talks.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

MPs speaking now don't know the difference between the withdrawal agreement and the 'deal' which hasn't even been started yet.

This 'deal' is just the WA, the divorce agreement. The future relationship is going to be negotiated afterwards.

Ken Clarke made that very point at the opening of the debate. It's a meaningless piece of paper (or "harmless" as Clarke put it) in many respects.

spacecoyote

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If no deal is genuinely not an option. Do you think it's likely May would get that through Parliament?

A 3 question referendum with the options of:

Remain
TM Deal
No Deal

Would be music to Remainer's ears I would have thought? The Remain vote would, at minimum likely stay the same, but the Leave vote would be diluted by a split between the 2 other options

VinLieger

spacecoyote wrote: »

A 3 question referendum with the options of:

Remain
TM Deal
No Deal

Would be music to Remainer's ears I would have thought? The Remain vote would, at minimum likely stay the same, but the Leave vote would be diluted by a split between the 2 other options

If no options gets a 50% majority would you have a run off? I cant see how having only a 3 option ref works without splitting the country even further due to the chance of there being no clear 50% majority

Imreoir2

If you are going to have a referendum, then it should be between May's deal and Remain. No-deal should not be offered as a choice. Let the hard core Brexiteers boycott if they like, remain will win and the UK can go back to ignoring the Brexiteers as they should have done in the first place.

john9876

3 option referendum choices! Has nobody grasped the fact that the British electorate are to put it mildly , lacking in brain power.
How about a two option referendum
1. Commit national hari-kari
2. As we were.

robinph

VinLieger wrote: »

If no options gets a 50% majority would you have a run off? I cant see how having only a 3 option ref works without splitting the country even further due to the chance of there being no clear 50% majority

And what do you do if 48% Remain, 27% TM deal, 25% No deal?

Could run off between Remain and TM deal, but the TM deal/ No deal leaver options would have a valid complaint that remain was the least preferred option compare to leave.

lawred2

john9876 wrote: »

3 option referendum choices! Has nobody grasped the fact that the British electorate are to put it mildly , lacking in brain power.
How about a two option referendum
1. Commit national hari-kari
2. As we were.

Wording could be risky there - you sure enough people would know what hari-kari means?

Hurrache

The Austrian chancellor looking somewhat bemused when asked if negotiations will resume after May's defeat. Interviewers seem to be really hoping, or expecting, someone in the EU will say ok, we'll drop the backstop.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1085170722316660737


He tried to go down the same road with this Green MEP
https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1085188528512716807

FreudianSlippers

Hurrache wrote: »

The Austrian chancellor looking somewhat bemused when asked if negotiations will resume after May's defeat. Interviewers seem to be really hoping, or expecting, someone in the EU will say ok, we'll drop the backstop.

https://twitter.com/Stone_SkyNews/status/1085170722316660737

Does the UK even know what more concessions they actually want?!

Hurrache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Does the UK even know what more concessions they actually want?!

Nope, and the guy in the second video said they don't know what they want.

VinLieger

robinph wrote: »

And what do you do if 48% Remain, 27% TM deal, 25% No deal?

Could run off between Remain and TM deal, but the TM deal/ No deal leaver options would have a valid complaint that remain was the least preferred option compare to leave.

Which is another reason, albeit a stupid one, why a 3 option deal won't work

MrMusician18

john9876 wrote: »

3 option referendum choices! Has nobody grasped the fact that the British electorate are to put it mildly , lacking in brain power.
How about a two option referendum
1. Commit national hari-kari
2. As we were.

As I've said many times before, we shouldn't be too smug about our collective national intelligence either.

If there is another referendum the options will be Mays deal or remain. A three way runoff or any other variant will not be used since Mays deal and remain are the only workable options. This is really quite similar to the vote we had on the 1921 Treaty in many ways, lots of potential options but only two viable outcomes.


It will then be up to Leave to take ownership of Mays deal and present it as the freedom to win freedom. This is Goves angle and imo the most probable next Tory leader.

It will be interesting in that case to see where the hard leavers will go. You might see them try to disown and discredit the process

Christy42

Can they just make a choice? Obviously no deal is bad for us but we can't prevent their decision. I would prefer no deal decided now instead of in 3 months time.

3 options. Pick one so we can prepare properly for it.

FreudianSlippers

Christy42 wrote: »

Can they just make a choice? Obviously no deal is bad for us but we can't prevent their decision. I would prefer no deal decided now instead of in 3 months time.

3 options. Pick one so we can prepare properly for it.

That's the point - we shouldn't allow any extension to Art 50 unless there is a good reason, and that good reason should only be a second referendum / people's vote. It should not be to facilitate a GE or a renegotiation of the deal.

FrancieBrady

Anybody listening to Sammy Wilson on Drivetime - who was the EU negotiator he says was claiming that 'the EU can't believe the deal they got' ?

EdgeCase

Just for the sake of information on the thread, is there an estimated time when this vote will happen?

upupup

In the event of a no Deal,would the potential border problems be a stumbling block for any other deal that the UK try to make outside of the EU.Other countries may think "Im not getting involved with that mess"
No deal with any country ever again?.....unless its a real bargain!

Keatsian

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that May doesn't have to actually detail out a Plan B in three days, certainly not something that she is then forced to stick to.

It can be as fluffy as simply saying she is going to work even harder and go back to the EU for further talks.

It provides an opportunity for MPs to debate that plan, and to table at least one amendment (the government may insist the debate is no longer than 90 minutes, and there is no more than one amendment). Government won't be bound by the results, but would come under enormous pressure if a majority in Parliament backed, say, an amendment seeking a softer withdrawal agreement or a second referendum.

If May turns up and presents a plan that sounds too "fluffy", a lot of MPs might start to seriously consider backing an alternative.

Adamcp898

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just for the sake of information on the thread, is there an estimated time when this vote will happen?

7ish. Although the speculation has moved on to what happens after it's rejected as opposed to what way will the vote go.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anybody listening to Sammy Wilson on Drivetime - who was the EU negotiator he says was claiming that 'the EU can't believe the deal they got' ?

Boogeyman de jour, Martin Selmayr.

The quote was reported on the Telegraph. Hmm.

Keatsian

Adamcp898 wrote: »

7ish. Although the speculation has moved on to what happens after it's rejected as opposed to what way will the vote go.

I think it's more a case of "after 7", which could be hours after.

Akrasia

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just for the sake of information on the thread, is there an estimated time when this vote will happen?

Voting on the 4 amendments is scheduled after 7pm and May's WA deal will be the last vote of the day

Adamcp898

Keatsian wrote: »

I think it's more a case of "after 7", which could be hours after.

Hence the "ish"

Voting to begin around 7, but as already pointed out, 1-4 amendments first.

J Mysterio

I see the Brexiteers are burning the EU flag now, outside parliament.

Adamcp898

J Mysterio wrote: »

I see the Brexiteers are burning the EU flag now, outside parliament.

And yet people say the DUP are ineffective.

:pac:

Christy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just for the sake of information on the thread, is there an estimated time when this vote will happen?

Each amendment is meant to have a max of 15 minutes so I believe 8 (with amendments starting at 7 as others have said).

Might be a bit beforehand but I don't see the (largely pointless) amendments going too quick.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Anybody listening to Sammy Wilson on Drivetime - who was the EU negotiator he says was claiming that 'the EU can't believe the deal they got' ?

I think it was a Dutch consultant on customs speaking to the HoC Brexit Committee who said that the first EU offer to the UK was unbelievable good and that no other country got such a good offer. The Dutch consultant also said that he couldn't understand why May turned it down.

I suspect that Sammy maybe massaging the truth a bit there.

For the record, the Dutch Consultant said that the EU negotiating team were on the ball and they had him in to discuss customs operations. The British team didn't invite him to explain how customs work and it was only a few weeks ago before he was asked by the HoC Committee to speak to them about it.

I saw that meeting - Sylvia Hermon was very impressive with her questioning. Wish there were a few more unionists like her around and there would not be this mess over Brexit.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

I think it was a Dutch consultant on customs speaking to the HoC Brexit Committee who said that the first EU offer to the UK was unbelievable good and that no other country got such a good offer. The Dutch consultant also said that he couldn't understand why May turned it down.

I suspect that Sammy maybe massaging the truth a bit there.

For the record, the Dutch Consultant said that the EU negotiating team were on the ball and they had him in to discuss customs operations. The British team didn't invite him to explain how customs work and it was only a few weeks ago before he was asked by the HoC Committee to speak to them about it.

I saw that meeting - Sylvia Hermon was very impressive with her questioning. Wish there were a few more unionists like her around and there would not be this mess over Brexit.

Sammy was saying this guy is claiming 'the EU can't believe how good a deal they (the EU) got.
He said it in the context of criticising May's weak negotiations.

Seems it was Martin Selmayr quoted in the Telegraph according to poster above.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sammy was saying this guy is claiming 'the EU can't believe how good a deal they (the EU) got.
He said it in the context of criticising May's weak negotiations.

Seems it was Martin Selmayr quoted in the Telegraph according to poster above.

I wonder why he didn't quote what the Dutch Customs Consultant had to say to the HoC Brexit Committee as from what I recall, he was present.