Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

ToBeFrank123

This is what has changed.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/explainer-what-is-theresa-mays-new-brexit-deal-and-what-happens-next-37903779.html

Three new documents were agreed with Mr Juncker on Monday night. The first is a "joint instrument" that relates to the Withdrawal Agreement. The PM said it reduces the risk that the UK could be "deliberately held in the Northern Ireland backstop indefinitely". The second is a "unilateral declaration" by the UK which sets out "the sovereign action the UK would take to provide assurance that the backstop would only be applied temporarily". The third is a supplement to the Political Declaration "setting out commitments by the UK and the EU to expedite the negotiation and bringing into force of their future relationship".

These are significant changes.

Some people on this thread remind me of the hardest of hardline brexiteers in the ERG or DUP. They are never ever happy, and say No to everything without bothering to look into it. Its tiresome to say the least!

54and56

So the DUP are reviewing the hard won legally binding changes to the WA (of which there are none) before they confirm whether or not they will support the vote this evening and the ERG are waiting to hear what the DUP have to say before they confirm their position.

Sounds to me like Arlene, Nigel and Sammy will hunker down round a table with a blank sheet of paper and start writing a wish list of what it is they want from TM in order to hold their nose and vote to back her deal in the best interests of the union blah blah blah

If some choreographed last minute drama produces a few constructively ambiguous documents which allow the DUP and ERG etc to climb down from their extreme positions and it results in a few hundred million pounds of infrastructure in NI which benefits all in NI at the cost of British Taxpayer then I say crack on.

It's a win win for everyone...........bar the British Taxpayer unfortunately but then this is part of the price they elected to pay when they voted for Brexit

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No-one wants a No Deal.

And there isn't a majority in the HoC for a second referendum.

Lots of people want a No Deal, and there could be a majority for a 2nd referendum if May's deal and No deal are both voted down, since at a minimum they'll need an extension, and the EU will not give them one just to faff about in Westminster, they will want a reason.


A 2nd referendum on Mays deal vs. Remain would also give May a chance of winning, give the ERG a chance at Brexit (if not their preferred one), give Labour a chance to bloody May's nose, give Remainer MPs a chance to cancel the whole sh!tshow and give Westminster a chance to move the whole problem to the Will of the People Mk 2.

j8wk2feszrnpao

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its tiresome to say the least!

As is your flip flopping from one side to the next. You were correctly called out, but proceed to dig your hole even deeper.

ToBeFrank123

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Pat Kenny just said he is hearing Sammy Wilson has stated DUP will reject it. Said he will have more updates soon.

I'm not surprised. Its obvious the DUP want a hard Brexit and no WA will satisfy them. Unfortunately I've come to that conclusion. Lets see what the ERG say.

Kermit.de.frog

I think it will squeak through.

The biggest thing Brexiteers fear is no Brexit at all. And that would be very much on the table if the vote goes down.

This should be enough to put the less fanatical of them in the correct lobby.

ToBeFrank123

munstermagic11 wrote: »

As is your flip flopping from one side to the next. You were correctly called out, but proceed to dig your hole even deeper.

Do you understand a week is a long time in politics? What was relevant last week is not this week?

Clearly you don't.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its obvious the DUP want a hard Brexit

Nonsense. The DUP took 15 minutes to decide to back Brexit because it is red white and blue. They, like Cameron, expected to lose the referendum. They have been backing it since because a) they are very stubborn and b) it gives them arm-twisting privileges at Westminster. But an actual No Deal would devastate NI and hit their voters hard in their wallets, not something the DUPs voters would enjoy.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

These are significant changes.

Really, because it seems an awful lot of people, including Starmer think that nothing has changed.

What specifically changed in terms of the deal last night?

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is what has changed.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/explainer-what-is-theresa-mays-new-brexit-deal-and-what-happens-next-37903779.html



These are significant changes.

Some people on this thread remind me of the hardest of hardline brexiteers in the ERG or DUP. They are never ever happy, and say No to everything without bothering to look into it. Its tiresome to say the least!

There's no changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lots of people want a No Deal, and there could be a majority for a 2nd referendum if May's deal and No deal are both voted down, since at a minimum they'll need an extension, and the EU will not give them one just to faff about in Westminster, they will want a reason.


A 2nd referendum on Mays deal vs. Remain would also give May a chance of winning, give the ERG a chance at Brexit (if not their preferred one), give Labour a chance to bloody May's nose, give Remainer MPs a chance to cancel the whole sh!tshow and give Westminster a chance to move the whole problem to the Will of the People Mk 2.

I think this is May's last gambit and if it fails, there's a chance she stands down as leader. I would have said there'd be a GE but she said she wouldn't lead the Tories into the next GE. So that means she stands down. Then a leadership process that will go on a for a while. Then possibly a hardline Brexiteer leader who goes back to Europe looking for new concessions. The EU give him the same deal. He comes back, puts it to parliament. Its rejected. He goes for either No Deal - possible if he's hardline, calls an election - unlikely as there's no guarantee the Tories will win and if they lose Brexit could be off the table. Or second referendum - unlikely if he's a hardline brexiteer as its possible also Brexit is taken off the table with a vote to remain.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

This will probably fail but the brexiteers will be heartened that the EU has apparently buckled-they will be thinking in their warped minds-"just how far can we push them for concessions?"
It's a sad day for remainers as this will drag the whole sorry affair out longer.

This is where a public school education comes in handy! :pac: Whatever they might say, JRM & Co. will know that the EU hasn't buckled, blinked or caved in any way, and not one I has been undotted or one T uncrossed since last week. So they'll be very cautious about how the move on from here.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This is what has changed.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/explainer-what-is-theresa-mays-new-brexit-deal-and-what-happens-next-37903779.html

These are significant changes.

No, they're not significant. The deal is the Withdrawal Agreement and it hasn't been touched; everything else is just padding to make the Tories feel like they've achieved something.

ToBeFrank123

Hurrache wrote: »

There's no changes to the Withdrawal Agreement.

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand them, certainly not the layman. Let's leave it to the legal experts shall we?

Laois_Man

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think this is May's last gambit and if it fails, there's a chance she stands down as leader. I would have said there'd be a GE but she said she wouldn't lead the Tories into the next GE. So that means she stands down. Then a leadership process that will go on a for a while. Then possibly a hardline Brexiteer leader who goes back to Europe looking for new concessions. The EU give him the same deal. He comes back, puts it to parliament. Its rejected. He goes for either No Deal - possible if he's hardline, calls an election - unlikely as there's no guarantee the Tories will win and if they lose Brexit could be off the table. Or second referendum - unlikely if he's a hardline brexiteer as its possible also Brexit is taken off the table with a vote to remain.

This post is completely pointless as T May did not say the blue bit.
She said she would not lead the Torys into the election in the red bit!

“People try to talk about dates; what I’m clear about is the next general election is in 2022 and I think it’s right another party leader takes us into that general election.”

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand them, certainly not the layman. Let's leave it to the legal experts shall we?

And what do those documents say that is different from the WA?

CelticRambler

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

They're not part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the WA is all that's being voted on.

Dyr

Ireland needs whatever is agreed to be agreed and done, the longer this drags out the more likely it is that variables will change and weaken support for our position. All our ducks are in a row right now, bad idea to kick the can down the road

Hurrache

Cox is expected to expand on his declaration of 'bollox' at 12:30 with a speech on the agreement.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think this is May's last gambit and if it fails, there's a chance she stands down as leader. I would have said there'd be a GE but she said she wouldn't lead the Tories into the next GE. So that means she stands down. Then a leadership process that will go on a for a while. Then possibly a hardline Brexiteer leader who goes back to Europe looking for new concessions.

You may be right, but since Brexit happens in 17 days, none of this will be the EUs problem.

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand them, certainly not the layman. Let's leave it to the legal experts shall we?

No, no there isn't.

Legal experts like these? You also don't need to be a legal expert to understand what the EU negotiators meant when they said, and consistently said, they're not reopening the WA.

https://twitter.com/livuninews/status/1105394967885869056

Laois_Man

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand them, certainly not the layman. Let's leave it to the legal experts shall we?

Here you go then....

In a legal opinion, Lord Anderson QC, Jason Coppel QC and Sean Aughey said: "It is crystal clear that the measures do not alter the fundamental legal effect of the backstop, as previously and correctly explained by the Attorney General."

cml387

On a lighthearted note, Cox's "bollox" reminds me of the allegedly true story of the minister reviewing a draft bill. Disagreeing with a paragraph in the strongest terms but not wanting to use the rude epithet "balls" he wrote down "round objects".
Later he received reaction from his pps."Who is Round, and why does he object?"

lawred2

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

I wouldn't expect most people to understand them, certainly not the layman. Let's leave it to the legal experts shall we?

indeed

Cryptopagan

Sam Russell wrote: »

The one option that the UK can take unilaterally is to revoke Art 50. Why is no-one talking about it?

It's not really an option unless Westminster decides to abandon Brexit. Revoking article 50 simply to stave off a decision on the form Brexit takes would be interpreted as an abuse of the process by the other 27, and its validity would probably become a matter for the courts. The only way the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and be certain the revocation is valid is to also drop Brexit as policy.

Laois_Man

AG's legal opinion has been published as "a substantive and binding legal reinforcement of the WA"

Vague!

Adamcp898

Did I hear that correctly on Bloomberg just now, Cox unchanged?

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

And what do those documents say that is different from the WA?

Do you understand what the documents are?

And please don't say nothing has changed because if you say that, you don't understand what they are.

I will ask you again to explain what the documents are. Here's your big chance to prove you understand what happened last night.

Regards the DUP, they have a long history of saying No when they don't understand something. They are certainly consistent in that regards.

Kermit.de.frog

Laois_Man wrote: »

AG's legal opinion has been published as "a substantive and binding legal reinforcement of the WA"

Vague!

:pac: A legally binding reinforcement of what the DUP and ERG hated in the first place!

:eek:

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

:pac: A legally binding enforcement of what the DUP and ERG hated in the first place!

:eek:

this is my take on it.

amazing

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

"the legal risk is unchanged"