Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

She is still talking about all the wonderful sunny uplands, though 3 years after the vote not one bit of detail

Shelga

She’s using the £39 billion/NHS lie again. Disgusting.

reslfj

LeinsterDub wrote: »

What's the FCA customs model?

Facilitated Customs Arrangement already called unimplementable and even if it were hugely expensive by experts like Sir Ivan and indeed by the EU27.

In short it's pure BS in the eyes of the EU27.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/facilitated-customs-arrangement-impact-analysis-background-note

Lars

Leroy42

I wasn't too far off in my expectation of the speech. Lots of "I've compromised, now everybody needs to agree with me" and "MP's must vote for Brexit because of the will of the people".

Nothing particularly new, see hasn't made any changes or decisions. Total lack of leadership.

A speech from the PM basically pleading for everyone to make her life easier and that she worked so hard they need to do what she wants!

Enzokk

Ian Dunt's initial view on her speech.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1130860372402024448

There is something for everyone, but only if they vote for her deal to leave the EU. So the risk for those that want to Remain is they have to vote to leave the EU to possibly get what they want.

ancapailldorcha

Ok. I missed this as I'm at work.

Anything of note. At first glance, it seems like vague commitments have been made to everyone without committing anything of substance.

weemcd

Terrible from May, even by her own standards, unicorn after unicorn and zero details.

Does anyone in their right mind think the UK will give the people protections "as good as, if not better than the EU" ???

She has surely ran out of road.

Leroy42

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Vote for my deal and then do whatever the hell you like.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ok. I missed this as I'm at work.

Anything of note. At first glance, it seems like vague commitments have been made to everyone without committing anything of substance.

Beth Rigby said that the compromises shouldn't be enough to win over Labour on her initial assessment. The temporary customs union is not what Labour wanted and the second referendum vote will not be enough unless she whips her own MPs to vote for it. So initially nothing new to make a difference to get Labour on board.

Edit: Also, her problem is that her party wants her out and the quickest way to do that is to voter her deal down and there is nothing in her deal to entice them to vote for it.

trellheim

Based on previous votes and experience

1. Vote will fail.

2. May has promised to go , interesting to see if she will or not.

3. BoJo will be next PM

4. Hard Brexit

Akrasia

All she has to do is include a 2nd referendum as part of the WA and it would pass the HOC with a hundred votes to spare.

If her plan really is 'the will of the people' then the 2nd Referendum will support her deal

The main reason she doesn't want to do this, is because she knows that a 2nd referendum between her deal and remaining would almost certainly be defeated and then all her 'delivering on the will of the people' waffle for the past 3 years will have been shown to be the nonsense that it was.

She's hardly doing it for party unity anymore, when she leaves the Tory leadership contest will split the party into at least two completely opposing camps and no new leader will be able to re-unite them in the short term.

briany

trellheim wrote: »

Based on previous votes and experience

1. Vote will fail.

2. May has promised to go , interesting to see if she will or not.

3. BoJo will be next PM

4. Hard Brexit

If Boris Johnson takes the position of no deal being better than a bad deal. I mean really takes that position, what are the chances that he'll suffer a vote of no-confidence before the 31st of October?

RickBlaine

What vote comes first, her WA or whether it is subject it to a 2nd ref?

That order makes a huge difference. If the 2nd ref vote is second, Lab could vote for the WA with the intention of subjecting it to a ref but then the ref vote doesn't pass.

farmchoice

RickBlaine wrote: »

What vote comes first, her WA or whether it is subject it to a 2nd ref?

That order makes a huge difference. If the 2nd ref vote is second, Lab could vote for the WA with the intention of subjecting it to a ref but then the ref vote doesn't pass.

i think thats it, pass the vote and then there would be a vote on whether it should be subject to a confirmatory referendum. she said there could not be a vote on a second ref before there was a deal agreed to actually vote on.

robinph

RickBlaine wrote: »

What vote comes first, her WA or whether it is subject it to a 2nd ref?

That order makes a huge difference. If the 2nd ref vote is second, Lab could vote for the WA with the intention of subjecting it to a ref but then the ref vote doesn't pass.

Her deal first and only if that passes do MP's get a vote on if there should be a 2nd referendum and obviously only if that passes does a 2nd referendum happen.

Hopefully the MP's see through the trap and vote the deal down yet again, the threat that she then put to them for that possibility was that brexit might not happen at all. So any remain MP should vote the deal down just due to that threat/ offer depending on how you want to see it.

farmchoice

this was mays summery at the end of the speech.


So our New Brexit Deal makes a ten-point offer to everyone in Parliament who wants to deliver the result of the referendum.
One - the government will seek to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the backstop by December 2020, so that it never needs to be used.
Two - a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland.
Three - the negotiating objectives and final treaties for our future relationship with the EU will have to be approved by MPs.
Four - a new workers’ rights bill that guarantees workers’ rights will be no less favourable than in the EU.
Five - there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the EU.
Six - the UK will seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement.
Seven - we will keep up to date with EU rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at border protecting the thousands of jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains.
Eight - the government will bring forward a customs compromise for MPs to decide on to break the deadlock.
Nine - there will be a vote for MPs on whether the deal should be subject to a referendum.
And ten – there will be a legal duty to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect this new deal.
All of these commitments will be guaranteed in law – so they will endure at least for this parliament.

RickBlaine

robinph wrote: »

RickBlaine wrote: »

What vote comes first, her WA or whether it is subject it to a 2nd ref?

That order makes a huge difference. If the 2nd ref vote is second, Lab could vote for the WA with the intention of subjecting it to a ref but then the ref vote doesn't pass.

Her deal first and only if that passes do MP's get a vote on if there should be a 2nd referendum and obviously only if that passes does a 2nd referendum happen.

Hopefully the MP's see through the trap and vote the deal down yet again, the threat that she then put to them for that possibility was that brexit might not happen at all. So any remain MP should vote the deal down just due to that threat/ offer depending on how you want to see it.

Wow... that is so desperate and insincere. If she truly values the will of the people as much as she says, just include the 2nd ref with the main WA.

Leroy42

Ian Dunt points that that even though it doesn't go far enough, even the fact that she acknowledges that a 2nd Ref is now required to get the bill through is a significant change in her stance.

She has effectively moved the 2nd Ref into the realm of acceptability, saying that the government has now accepted that a 2nd vote could be the correct course of action.

True that she wrapped it up in complexity and is using it as bait, but the point now it to hammer it home by asking the question why it was accepted before and why not simply put the deal to a 2nd ref instead of waiting for the HoC to have another go.

Enzokk

farmchoice wrote: »

this was mays summery at the end of the speech.


So our New Brexit Deal makes a ten-point offer to everyone in Parliament who wants to deliver the result of the referendum.
One - the government will seek to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the backstop by December 2020, so that it never needs to be used.
Two - a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland.
Three - the negotiating objectives and final treaties for our future relationship with the EU will have to be approved by MPs.
Four - a new workers’ rights bill that guarantees workers’ rights will be no less favourable than in the EU.
Five - there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the EU.
Six - the UK will seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement.
Seven - we will keep up to date with EU rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at border protecting the thousands of jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains.
Eight - the government will bring forward a customs compromise for MPs to decide on to break the deadlock.
Nine - there will be a vote for MPs on whether the deal should be subject to a referendum.
And ten – there will be a legal duty to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect this new deal.
All of these commitments will be guaranteed in law – so they will endure at least for this parliament.

Numbers 2 and 7 conflicts with number 6. You cannot be in the single market and abide by its rules, for NI not to have a border, but at the same time being outside of the same single market. Unicorns have made a reappearance again.

Also, that bolded bit is not worth the paper it is written on. So if she promises all of this, Johnson becomes PM and immediately calls a GE, wins over the Brexit Party voters with a promise on a hard Brexit and Labour loses their voters because they facilitated Brexit and he has a majority to lead. He rips up May's deal and does what he wants with a new parliament. If I could I would use the Tom Hardy Gif from Mad Max Fury Road, 'That's Bait'.

briany

farmchoice wrote: »

Two - a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland.

What's May saying with this, exactly? Is she saying that GB will stay under the same rules and regulations in order to facilitate frictionless trade and movement? That's already been proved not to be a goer. Does she mean that NI will stay part of the UK? That's covered by the border poll. Does she mean that she'll work to ensure that the backstop lasts as short a time as possible? Surely that would be the plan anyway.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

What's May saying with this, exactly? Is she saying that GB will stay under the same rules and regulations in order to facilitate frictionless trade and movement? That's already been proved not to be a goer. Does she mean that NI will stay part of the UK? That's covered by the border poll. Does she mean that she'll work to ensure that the backstop lasts as short a time as possible? Surely that would be the plan anyway.

That was the DUP carrot in her speech, there will not be any changes in regulations between the UK and NI. But that is a no-go for the ERG as it keeps them in the SM and CU.

The Times have an update on the reaction:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1130872372410634248

It has been rejected already it seems.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ian Dunt points that that even though it doesn't go far enough, even the fact that she acknowledges that a 2nd Ref is now required to get the bill through is a significant change in her stance.

She has effectively moved the 2nd Ref into the realm of acceptability, saying that the government has now accepted that a 2nd vote could be the correct course of action.

True that she wrapped it up in complexity and is using it as bait, but the point now it to hammer it home by asking the question why it was accepted before and why not simply put the deal to a 2nd ref instead of waiting for the HoC to have another go.

The WA can be amended to include a 2nd referendum to avoid the trap. Ie: if there is a proposed amendment to include a confirmatory vote in the WA itself, and that fails, then any 2nd ref proponents would vote against the entire WA knowing that the chances of the 2nd ref passing on its own would be zero.

The irony of this is that if such an ammendment passed, May could then whip against her own WA as ammended, and then there would be no WA to have a 'confirmatory vote' on

gimli2112

UKIP spokesman getting eviscerated on BBC news. Is this guy the leader of the party? Richard Braine

ancapailldorcha

gimli2112 wrote: »

UKIP spokesman getting eviscerated on BBC news. Is this guy the leader of the party? Richard Braine

Gerard Batten leads UKIP.

4068ac1elhodqr

trellheim wrote: »

If May goes Paddy Power are offering 7/4 on BoJo being next PM all the way up to 500/1 Piers Morgan to be next PM

When (not if) for May to go during '19, Bojo was better value months ago and likely is their (Cons) only viable option now.



One interesting novetly market with Powers was for NF to become a PM (anytime during 2019). Got while ago at 66/1, somewhat unlikely, however today it's only about 20/1.

Noticed also his TBP are down as low as 7/1 to win any GenEle. Interesting times.

Enzokk

Channel 4 is not backing down on their Brexit Party funding questions.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1130883234856951808

I think Nigel knows he is in trouble, you will notice in the clip he states he has not received any cash at all from Aron Banks and in any case it was nothing to do with politics so its nobodies business. Two problems I can see with that, you have to declare any gifts and cash you receive and having your rent paid is most definitely a gift even if the money is not paid to you (as an example). This is to ensure you are open and forthright about your views as a politician and whether you have a vested interests that may need your attention.

Then secondly, he is a politician and it was his choice to go into this line of work and that surely means there will be some scrutiny of his lifestyle, especially if it is much more lavish than his salary suggests it should be.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

Channel 4 is not backing down on their Brexit Party funding questions.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1130883234856951808

I think Nigel knows he is in trouble, you will notice in the clip he states he has not received any cash at all from Aron Banks and in any case it was nothing to do with politics so its nobodies business. Two problems I can see with that, you have to declare any gifts and cash you receive and having your rent paid is most definitely a gift even if the money is not paid to you (as an example). This is to ensure you are open and forthright about your views as a politician and whether you have a vested interests that may need your attention.

Then secondly, he is a politician and it was his choice to go into this line of work and that surely means there will be some scrutiny of his lifestyle, especially if it is much more lavish than his salary suggests it should be.

The news that there are irregularities will only gain the notice of those already against Farage. For his supporters, it'll be seen as just another attempt to smear "gud ol' Nige'", part of the ongoing campaign to stop Brexit by the Remoaner so-called mainstream media (their words).

Thargor

Boris as PM while horrifying would be serious entertainment, the knives would be out instantly, his own party trying to undermine him at every turn.

Farage saying No Cash is absolutely zero defence, half a million in lifestyle funding undeclared is of great interest to the taxman nevermind election law.

Sam Russell

Sterling on the slide. It has lost 2.7p in two weeks (84.9p 4th May to 87.7p 21st May). Trouble ahead.

Kermit.de.frog

Varadkar saying her deal is acceptable to Ireland.


I'm not sure a Stormont lock should be in there.