Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Donald Trump

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So we should bow to the bully boys ? Appease those who can't be appeased ? Immigration won't stop, it won't even slow down. So they'll probably riot at some stage in any event.


Last time we had a hard border 3,000 people died. Scumbags rioting up there barely makes it on the news.

They should invite the PSNI and their petrol bomb proof armoured Land Rovers and baton rounds over. It could be practice for marching season.

They've left it too late in my opinion. Nothing to do with trade deals or actual mechanics of withdrawing A50.



Let's see. I don't think TM will unilaterally revoke. And I don't think she will even get a vote in the HoC telling her to. She is more likely to have a heap of votes telling her what not to do.


We will find out within the next two weeks. My money is against A50 being revoked. I hope I'm wrong, but lets see.

Popeleo

RickBlaine wrote: »

Bercow has just said he believed such a change, to allow a third meaningful vote, would need to require a renegotiation at EU level, rather than clarification of the legal advice written by the Attorney General

The one substantial change that could be easily made that stands out to me is making the backstop NI specific. The EU would have no problem with it - that was the original deal after all.

Apart from the DUP, I doubt few brexiteers would see the it as a deal-breaker. And if it came to pass, what a waste of a golden opportunity for the NI economy.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I'm just hearing that the speaker of the house John Bercow has said that the government can't just bring back the deal again next week if it's the same or more or less the same. That sounds like a bad day for Theresa May. The EU have said there will be no further clarification or anything to do with the withdrawal agreement so that means the deal as it stand is dead then surely ?

That's my reading. And as the tweet above pointed out, there's no reason to give an extension if the EU know nothing will substantially change.

It's No Brexit or No Deal. And No Brexit will win out. No Deal has already been voted against.

Calina

Can we stop discussing French elections here?

WhiteMan32

Last Wednesday in the HoC, one of the amendments tabled by former Tory MP Sarah Wollaston (now part of newly formed Independent Group) was for a delay to allow for a referendum that asks people do they want Theresa May’s deal or do they want to remain in the EU. After most Labour MPs abstained on the motion, it was defeated by 249 votes.

Following this afternoon's statement by Speaker John Bercow, would another HoC vote on a second Brexit referendum on or before March 29th now also be disallowed? Hopefully not...as I very much want there to be one, so that the our nearest neighbor's political mess can be reversed!

Water John

If it becomes a necessity over 500 MPs will vote or at least abstain on Revoking Art 50, given that or the option of Crash Out Brexit.

ancapailldorcha

Calina wrote: »

Can we stop discussing French elections here?

Mod: Use the report function please.

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I'm just hearing that the speaker of the house John Bercow has said that the government can't just bring back the deal again next week if it's the same or more or less the same. That sounds like a bad day for Theresa May. The EU have said there will be no further clarification or anything to do with the withdrawal agreement so that means the deal as it stand is dead then surely ?

Yeah, it looks like the deal is dead, but obviously I don't have a grasp of the intricacies of the HoC rules and bylaws. Reports are that No. 10 is not happy about Bercow's ruling, but they can't have not known it was coming. It seems like a fairly cut-and-dry rule.

I don't see any way forward beyond a lengthy extension + second referendum. I'm not sure the EU would even accept the UK extending for another GE, as another GE is not guaranteed to give a clear outcome.

WhiteMan32

WhiteMan32 wrote: »

Last Wednesday in the HoC, one of the amendments tabled by former Tory MP Sarah Wollaston (now part of newly formed Independent Group) was for a delay to allow for a referendum that asks people do they want Theresa May’s deal or do they want to remain in the EU. After most Labour MPs abstained on the motion, it was defeated by 249 votes.

Following this afternoon's statement by Speaker John Bercow, would another HoC vote on a second Brexit referendum on or before March 29th now also be disallowed? Hopefully not...as I very much want there to be one, so that the our nearest neighbor's political mess can be reversed!

Interesting observation. But in light of this, and Labour saying they planned on doing in later, I think it would be allowed.

If was also an amendment I believe which gives him the leeway to allow it.

Enzokk

Donald Trump wrote: »

They've left it too late in my opinion. Nothing to do with trade deals or actual mechanics of withdrawing A50.



Let's see. I don't think TM will unilaterally revoke. And I don't think she will even get a vote in the HoC telling her to. She is more likely to have a heap of votes telling her what not to do.


We will find out within the next two weeks. My money is against A50 being revoked. I hope I'm wrong, but lets see.

I don't see how article 50 is revoked as there not enough support for it and I doubt she can do it without consent of parliament. Any choice from here on in will be tough to get through parliament as there is no consensus on what they want. Parliament had the opportunity to take control for a few days to debate the next steps but, as BJ would say, spaffed it up the wall.

The crying from MPs over not being told there would not be another vote as it may have changed their last vote is too late. They should have stopped playing politics and taken this whole episode seriously. As it stands they are all upset because they have been caught with their pants down and are starting to realize that their actions could have serious consequences.

Dont be at yourself

Got to be an extension and general election now. Tories to replace May, and Labour campaign on a customs union platform.

Could very easily end up with a similarly divided parliament again of course.

Hurrache

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1107665317436837888?s=21

Guy Verhofstadt not happy.

There is an angle in the debate where the view is it is better for the UK to just leave the EU now for the sake of the EU.
That if the UK were to remain they would just spread their toxic environment to others given whatever happens now people are going to be very unhappy.
That the UK and their mess is taking up valuable time in the EU and people are fed up dealing with the nonsense in the withdrawal process.
The feeling among some is just cut them lose and everyone can then move on.
Some believe that things would get so bad for the UK under no deal, that they would come running back to the EU looking for a new deal and would the UK would in this situation go for a much softer Brexit so to exit the chaos of being in a no deal scenario.
A bit like with the Greeks and they were not accepting of the deal, but after the banks ran out of money and the ATM machines not giving the money wanted, they then changed their minds.
This could be where Brexit goes...maybe the UK has to go over the cliff before they see sense.

Verhofstadt tweeted that before Bercow's speech so he is probably even more unhappier now.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

Lots of :eek: on Twitter and elsewhere, but remember folks, you read it here first! (or rather "there" at the end of the last Brexit thread )



This is by no means a green light for a no-deal Brexit - it's a warning to TM that it's time she stopped talking to the headbangers and reached out to the other parties. Given the very short time remaining, Kyle-Wilson is still the best hope for getting TM out of the hole she's dug, because without that - or something very similar - she has nothing to offer the EU.

Fair play on that call, absolutely nailed it on first base. Quick question on indicative voting and where it might fit into your estimated timeline? Would it hsve much impact on the process do you think?

Enzokk

Popeleo wrote: »

The one substantial change that could be easily made that stands out to me is making the backstop NI specific. The EU would have no problem with it - that was the original deal after all.

Apart from the DUP, I doubt few brexiteers would see the it as a deal-breaker. And if it came to pass, what a waste of a golden opportunity for the NI economy.

If she does that she loses her job. The DUP may not kick up a big fuss immediately but they would probably humiliate her with a budget that needs to pass.

In any case, I am worried about the negotiations of the likes of Banks and Farage on the continent. We are at the mercy of some despicable politicians who has very little time for the rule of law.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fair play on that call, absolutely nailed it on first base. Quick question on indicative voting and where it might fit into your estimated timeline? Would it hsve much impact on the process do you think?

That is actually a remarkable call on Bercow. Bravo.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is actually a remarkable call on Bercow. Bravo.

It truly was. I think I must’ve read about 50 brexit articles in the British weekend papers and im sure i didn’t see that eventuality speculated on in any of them.

ancapailldorcha

She was planning another vote on Wednesday last I read. This basically trashes that now, yes?

WhiteMan32

Like they did to the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement, might the DUP now try to St. Andrew-ise the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement?

Water John

A Govn't lad taking great umbrage at the audacity of the Speaker;
Solicitor general says UK is in 'major constitutional crisis'
This is from Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, on Bercow saying he might not allow a repeat vote on the Brexit deal. Buckland told BBC News:

We are in a major constitutional crisis here.

There are ways around this - a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.

Now we have this ruling to deal with, it is clearly going to require a lot of very fast but very deep thought in the hours ahead. Guradian.

Infini

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She was planning another vote on Wednesday last I read. This basically trashes that now, yes?

The last info for this was she was planming on delaying the 3rd vote. Bercow could've just decided to call time on these games by removing the decision from her hands until she either 1) Comes up with a realistic new plan or 2) abandons this farce.

Roger_007

TM has insisted all along that to have another referendum would be "a denial of democracy". Now she discovers that Bercow is of the same opinion when it comes to resubmitting the same proposal in the HoC.
Undoubtedly she will pretend to be surprised!

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

The last info for this was she was planming on delaying the 3rd vote. Bercow could've just decided to call time on these games by removing the decision from her hands until she either 1) Comes up with a realistic new plan or 2) abandons this farce.

I think she can seek an extension but that would necessitate confronting the dilemma over elections for the European Parliament.

But there are now less than 2 weeks remaining. If it passes, it'll be proper 11th hour stuff only this time the UK will come out worse. And they voted for it.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJX-8SsYzOs

This is the full statement from the speaker of the House of Commons earlier. I think it's important to hear the whole thing as I'd actually only heard the very end. The speaker in fairness sets out the reasons and the precedent and the rule for his making the statement and what tests any further meaningful vote would have to pass before being "in order"

briany

Water John wrote: »

There are ways around this - a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.

If you could even call a new session of parliament within the time left, the government are still looking down the barrel of a 3rd defeat.

Don't really see the EU willing to extend by a few months on the basis of 3rd time lucky either.

RickBlaine

So TM has been denied another vote on an issue that was already voted upon. Now she knows how the 2nd ref supporters feel.

Sierra Oscar

Water John wrote: »

There are ways around this - a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.

That would require the Queen's intervention and a whole formal ceremony. I can't see it happening, time is in short supply and the Monarchy would be dismayed at being drawn into a political crisis.

I'd say a long extension agreement followed by an immediate general election is now more likely. Although a no deal Brexit has become a very real possibility now.

Enzokk

I see some tweets on how Bercow is one of the few whose reputations has actually been enhanced in all of this madness in the UK. He has become a sensation with his, "ORDER....Ordaahhhhh!!" and his rulings today shows he is not just a partisan hack doing his parties bidding. His reward for this, not getting a peerage as almost all speakers has done before in all likelihood. This because he has been fair in his rulings and it has upset the Conservatives and they want to get back at him.

I was looking at his election wins and Labour, while never strong in his constituency, didn't run a candidate the last 2 elections. May be they respect him more than his own party members?

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

I see some tweets on how Bercow is one of the few whose reputations has actually been enhanced in all of this madness in the UK. He has become a sensation with his, "ORDER....Ordaahhhhh!!" and his rulings today shows he is not just a partisan hack doing his parties bidding. His reward for this, not getting a peerage as almost all speakers has done before in all likelihood. This because he has been fair in his rulings and it has upset the Conservatives and they want to get back at him.

I was looking at his election wins and Labour, while never strong in his constituency, didn't run a candidate the last 2 elections. May be they respect him more than his own party members?

Speaker is not opposed in an election. He is normally returned unopposed.

Sierra Oscar

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That would require the Queen's intervention and a whole formal ceremony. I can't see it happening, time is in short supply and the Monarchy would be dismayed at being drawn into a political crisis.

I'd say a long extension agreement followed by an immediate general election is now more likely. Although a no deal Brexit has become a very real possibility now.

But they've voted against no Brexit.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

But they've voted against no Brexit.

Not in a legally binding manner though. No deal is the default legal position.