Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Options
1…151152154156157…324

Comments

  • Options
    #4592
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,754 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Aye Bercow gives the green light to the WA without the PD:

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1111310962173374464


  • Options
    #4593
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Jacob was virulently against the WA for many months and loudly proclaimed that he saw it as a betrayal. Then on Tuesday, in a rambling and self-serving article in The Mail and with a heavy heart, he announced that he would vote for the WA. Last night, however, Jacob changed his mind and stated that he couldn't vote for the WA. In yet another volte face today, he has now 'decided' that he will wait and see what the DUP does. He's pathetic.


  • Options
    #4594
    farmchoice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭farmchoice


    joe40 wrote: »
    How has it changed, or is that known at this stage
    it is the WA agreement without the political deceleration.


    i cant see it passing.


  • Options
    #4595
    Headshot
    Registered Users Posts: 54,318 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    oh wow they are not happy in Parliament


  • Options
    #4596
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    That petition is closing on 6m, well about 60k short. Presume it closes on Monday after token debate but still fairly impressive all the same!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4597
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    farmchoice wrote: »
    it is the WA agreement without the political deceleration.


    i cant see it passing.

    Isn't the PD essentially a wish list that isn't legally binding?

    Here vote for this slap in the face followed by a potential bowl of ice cream.
    Eh no.
    Okay how about this? Just vote for the slap in the face!


  • Options
    #4598
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    I'm lost here. What is Political Deceleration?


  • Options
    #4599
    Purgative
    Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭Purgative


    Eod100 wrote: »
    That petition is closing on 6m, well about 60k short. Presume it closes on Monday after token debate but still fairly impressive all the same!


    20th August They all run for 6 months.


    New signatures have slowed down quite a bit today though.


  • Options
    #4600
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    farmchoice wrote: »
    joe40 wrote: »
    How has it changed, or is that known at this stage
    it is the WA agreement without the political deceleration.


    i cant see it passing.

    Why would it pass? The backstop is in the WA.


  • Options
    #4601
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    Purgative wrote: »
    20th August They all run for 6 months.


    New signatures have slowed down quite a bit today though.

    About 37k since 9pm last night. It will peak soon but is slowly rising by the day


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4602
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,021 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm lost here. What is Political Deceleration?
    What an apt typo.


  • Options
    #4603
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm lost here. What is Political Deceleration?

    Basically discussion around future relationship between EU and UK post-Brexit afaik


  • Options
    #4604
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,698 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Aye Bercow gives the green light to the WA without the PD:

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1111310962173374464


    That's great, they will not vote on the part of the whole agreement with the EU that is amendable and doesn't have any legal standing, but they will still have the part that they are all so opposed to, the backstop. So logically this will still be defeated, but then again we are talking about politicians playing games here.

    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm lost here. What is Political Deceleration?


    It sets out the path to the future talks once the deal has been agreed. It is like, if this terrible analogy is maybe accurate, having architect drawings for building a new house, however your planning permission is not tied to the drawings so you are free to change it as you see fit once you have the planning permission agreed.


  • Options
    #4605
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,301 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    Isn't it the Withdrawal Agreement that the likes of the DUP have the issue with, and not the Political Declaration? What is the point in bringing this vote tomorrow?


  • Options
    #4606
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    murphaph wrote: »
    What an apt typo.

    Don't ask me, I just copied it out, lol.

    Anyway I found this : Brexit what's the difference between the withdrawal agreement and political declaration?
    Part 1: The Withdrawal Agreement
    This relates to the £39billion, citizens rights both here in the UK and British citizens in the EU and then the backstop on the Northern Ireland border. This is a legally-binding document and from the EU's point of view, it has to be passed by the British and the European Parliaments before the UK can leave the European Union with a deal. If we can't pass this withdrawal agreement by tomorrow, we can't leave the EU with a deal.

    Part 2: The Political Declaration
    This is something that Theresa May drew up with the European Union about what the future relationship between the European Union and the UK would look like. This isn't legally binding and was meant to form the basis of trade talks.

    Yesterday, Theresa May announced she wouldn't lead the second phase of negotiations, so what it appears the government have done today is to say 'Forget about the Political Declaration, we just need to leave on 22nd May'. For that to happen, we need to pass the withdrawal agreement. That is a fact.


  • Options
    #4607
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,429 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    If tomorrow's vote doesn't ratify the WA, which is what Leadsom just said. Can it then be challenged in Court by Gina Millar?


  • Options
    #4608
    farmchoice
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭farmchoice


    they are trying to pull a bit of a 3 card trick here.
    tomorrows motion would on the face of it be enough to keep the eu happy and open up the extension to may 22 but is and of its self not legally binding on parliament (government), it would require a further vote on the withdrawal bill ( inc the PD),to cause that to happen.

    i could be wrong about this its quite complicated by the looks of it.


  • Options
    #4609
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1111319086049443841
    Seems you can't separate the WA from the PD. UK just negotiating with itself again it seems


  • Options
    #4610
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    It's like they're trying to get out of quickstand by struggling even more..


  • Options
    #4611
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

    So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4612
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,505 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

    So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?

    Is it just the withdrawal agreement without the future arrangement? The two are seemingly inseparable as part of her deal. But yeah, its hard to say whats going on.

    Maybe they are saying its just the WA so that it passes the speakers test, then the vote will end up being the exact same thing tomorrow after a quick amendment


  • Options
    #4613
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,754 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    If they don't pass the PD, then it gives a carte blanche for a Brexiteer led next Tory Leader / PM to cast brexit in their own mould, not sure the EU will be in alignment with that by a long stretch. No wonder the ERG are chomping at the bit for this now!


  • Options
    #4614
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    There might be opposition to even sit tomorrow. Farcical


  • Options
    #4615
    Cosmo Kramer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,024 ✭✭✭Cosmo Kramer


    This motion will be dead on arrival by morning. A really stupid attempt to cheat the deal through. Even the British parliament aren't stupid enough to fall for this one.


  • Options
    #4616
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,935 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

    So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?

    My understanding is that the previous meaningful votes it was implied that a vote meant the WA and the PD, so that you voted for one you voted for the other.

    This(and I'm haven't seen what was said in the House of Commons) Vote tomorrow seems to be explicitly saying that it's only a vote for the WA and nothing else. That's just what I think it means.


  • Options
    #4617
    gooch2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gooch2k9


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    My understanding is that the previous meaningful votes it was implied that a vote meant the WA and the PD, so that you voted for one you voted for the other.

    This(and I'm haven't seen what was said in the House of Commons) Vote tomorrow seems to be explicitly saying that it's only a vote for the WA and nothing else. That's just what I think it means.

    Sky just said some legal head stated that voting for WA is a vote for PD as it is referenced within the WA.

    Appears a technical way around not being allowed a third MV.


  • Options
    #4618
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,935 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Cosmo Kramer wrote: »
    This motion will be dead on arrival by morning. A really stupid attempt to cheat the deal through. Even the British parliament aren't stupid enough to fall for this one.

    Well the EU did say that they had to vote again and depending on whether the deal was passed or not, then the dates of April 12th and May the 22nd come into play.


  • Options
    #4619
    Eod100
    Registered Users Posts: 11,786 ✭✭✭✭Eod100


    DUP won't back, Labour won't back, all of ERG may not back. Can't see May has the votes


  • Options
    #4620
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,754 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    DUP defo against!

    https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1111326326450016256


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4621
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,935 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    gooch2k9 wrote: »
    Sky just said some legal head stated that voting for WA is a vote for PD as it is referenced within the WA.

    Appears a technical way around not being allowed a third MV.

    Right. I'm not watching sky news so I'm just going on what is being said here. So why exactly has John Bercow accepted this motion for a MV3 tommorrow ? Did he say why ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement