Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

The debate lasts several days; the vote is taken at the conclusion of the debate.

Which made the initial prorogation so much more ridiculous when you work out it takes about 6 days of debate (normally, one day for a specific area like defense or finances or health) and then the vote after the speech before parliament returns to normal again. That is another week or more lost in the most critical time to avoid scrutiny from the government.

boggerman1

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nicky Morgan has lost any credibility she may have had. A classic example of a career politician. You can see it in her interviews. She doesn't believe what she is saying and when pushed she always falls back to the point that everyone needs to compromise.

Which in other words means she did and she wants people to understand why she did.

Totally agree on Morgan.wouldn't believe her if she told me today is actually Wednesday.saw a couple of weeks ago on that ch4 documentary about the Tories @ war and she came across completely 2 faced.was against Johnson as a pm but when he gave her a ministers car she was all loved up for him

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The debate lasts several days; the vote is taken at the conclusion of the debate.

The interesting thing about a QS is that it's amendable. So it's possible that by the end of the process, it will be amended beyond recognition. But that also gives the opposition plenty of opportunity to tie Johnson in even more knots.

Leroy42

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. Yet more delays.

QS is based on a stable government and a stable county. It is a pantomime, designed to aggrandise the HoP. It was created, I assume, at a time when time wasn't as important, certainly not with a looming deadline rushing towards them.

It, in normal times, is a quaint tradition, to provide the monarchy with a semblance of importance and generate an air of nobility around the HoC.

There is no value in it at the moment as should be seen as a dereliction of duty by the MP's

devnull

prawnsambo wrote: »

The interesting thing about a QS is that it's amendable. So it's possible that by the end of the process, it will be amended beyond recognition. But that also gives the opposition plenty of opportunity to tie Johnson in even more knots.

If it's amendable, then what is stopping Tories from putting forward huge numbers of fillibusting amendments that drone on and on to stop Parliament sitting any other business before Brexit day?

ilovesmybrick

There are plans for an emergency Saturday sitting of the commons on the 19th of October, that should be an interesting day in Parliament!

prawnsambo

devnull wrote: »

If it's amendable, then what is stopping Tories from putting forward huge numbers of fillibusting amendments that drone on and on to stop Parliament sitting any other business before Brexit day?

Well they don't have control of the Speaker and it's he who decides what goes forward for debate. And Tories amending their own QS would (I suspect) carry very little weight with him.

Call me Al

So The Times is reporting that the EU is proposing a "concession" of sorts.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296?s=20

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

Needless to say the unionists commenting really don't like this more democratic flavour of democracy.

Zubeneschamali

devnull wrote: »

Surprised to see Cox there, bearing in mind how vocal he was for Johnson's side very recently.

Cox is the Attorney General, if Boris defies the law and the Scottish Court, Cox and Buckland will have to resign.

Stop moaning ffs

Call me Al wrote: »

So The Times is reporting that the EU is proposing a "concession" of sorts.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296?s=20

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

Needless to say the unionists commenting really don't like this more democratic flavour of democracy.

It’s a weird one. Can’t see who will be more against it, our government or the DUP

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

So The Times is reporting that the EU is proposing a "concession" of sorts.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296?s=20

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

Needless to say the unionists commenting really don't like this more democratic flavour of democracy.

It's an interesting idea. So a time limit with no real expectation that it will ever pass, so not really a time limit.

Call me Al

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s a weird one. Can’t see who will be more against it, our government or the DUP

I couldn't see that it would be rolled out as a concession if it hadn't been discussed with Simon Coveney yesterday.

Stop moaning ffs

Call me Al wrote: »

I couldn't see that it be rolled out as an concession if it hadn't been discussed with Simon Coveney yesterday.

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

prawnsambo

Call me Al wrote: »

I couldn't see that it be rolled out as an concession if it hadn't been discussed with Simon Coveney yesterday.

Yeah. It's not an outrageous suggestion. And it absolutely trounces the 'undemocratic backstop' nonsense. Plus it's the actual backstop that should keep the little englanders happy. Once they get their heads around the fact that they'll be 'free'.

LeinsterDub

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

How it's basically the NI backstop , except a democratic vote could remove it . The only democratic vote that will remove it is a UI

Leroy42

It is actually quite a large concession, effectively reopening the WA which the EU said they would never do.

But from the outside, this looks like a optics only concession. There is no way, currently, that the nationalist community would vote to leave the EU and erect a border. But if they did at least it would be their choice. Would it happen in 5 years, no chance. 10? Well who knows but then democracy means that nothing can ever be permanent anyway.

The UK were looking for a time limit, this is not really it, but it moves a long way towards it.

Enzokk

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

It could, but if SF would never vote for a border between Ireland and NI then it is not much of a risk of one so it is a safe bet from our side and shows our willingness to compromise to the UK.

Seth Brundle

Sammy says No...

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1181859500313206784?s=19

prawnsambo

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

It certainly could be spun that way, which, of course is one of its aims I would imagine. But it's the NI only backstop with a 'time limit', so ticks a box on each side. If Johnson wants to actually get out of the EU, this is his route if he has the backbone to grasp it.

ToBeFrank123

I hope I'm wrong but somehow I can't see the DUP agreeing to the double majority idea. They are always fearful of losing their power and influence and hate to be seen to be on a par with anyone else.

Another option might be a referendum every four years of the people of NI. Costly but worth it overall.

Dealing with NI is always difficult. If you promote one group or section, the other cries foul.

Peregrinus

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

It's a significant compromise, but not necessarily a major climbdown. Remember, the backstop was always designed and intended to be superseded by other arrangements, but Brexiters objected that there was no objective standard for the sufficiency of the other arrangments and that the EU could simply reject anything proposed as part of the sinisiter agenda to keep the UK trapped forever, bwaahaaahaa!

This could be the answer to that. Realistically, the only circumstance in which both communities would want to end the backstop would be where it was to be superseded by other arrangements that both considered preferable. So the standard for replacement arrnagements would be "acceptable to both communities in NI".

There's the theoretical possiblity that both communities might vote to ditch the backstop and just revert to a hard border, but (a) that seems wildly unlikely to happen in reality, and (b) if it ever were to happen, it would indicate that teh backstop was so unpopular in NI as to be unsustainable anyway. A standard objection to Brexiter proposals for alternative arrangements is that they don't enjoy any kind of support or acceptance among the communities that would actually have to operate them, and this makes them unworkable. But, if that's a good objection, it must also be a good objection to the backstop, if it is universally reviled.

Call me Al

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It would be seen as a major climb down by us though wouldn’t it?

I dont see it that way at all but if we are tactical we would huff and puff about it and feign dismay.
It would be hard for any of the reasonable brexit supporters to say it's not a reasonable suggestion. No justification for Johnson to say we were unreasonable and intransigent.

ToBeFrank123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Sammy says No...

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1181859500313206784?s=19

I knew they'd say no. Anything that gives more power to nationalists they oppose.

ToBeFrank123

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is actually quite a large concession, effectively reopening the WA which the EU said they would never do.

But from the outside, this looks like a optics only concession. There is no way, currently, that the nationalist community would vote to leave the EU and erect a border. But if they did at least it would be their choice. Would it happen in 5 years, no chance. 10? Well who knows but then democracy means that nothing can ever be permanent anyway.

The UK were looking for a time limit, this is not really it, but it moves a long way towards it.

The DUP will and its seems have opposed this the second they see it. They know it would equate to a permanent backstop.

Call me Al

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I knew they'd say no. Anything that gives more power to nationalists they oppose.

Well of course they'll say no. But its Parliament he needs. He might persuade them. He needs an election either way, and this would be Brexit delivered and his Tory electorate out.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I knew they'd say no. Anything that gives more power to nationalists they oppose.

The thing is, it may not matter what they say. This proposal could bring Labour MPs on board and also many (if not all) of the Tory rebels. The LibDems will oppose it, as will the SNP, but it could go through with opposition (ad hoc) support.

edit: and abstentions of course.

L1011

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong but somehow I can't see the DUP agreeing to the double majority idea. They are always fearful of losing their power and influence and hate to be seen to be on a par with anyone else.

Another option might be a referendum every four years of the people of NI. Costly but worth it overall.

Dealing with NI is always difficult. If you promote one group or section, the other cries foul.

DUP agreement is not required; the Government is already dead and they need far more than the DUP to get any deal through.

CelticRambler

Call me Al wrote: »

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

What happens if the non-tribal-aligned electorate has a majority over both unionist and republican communities? Sounds like the headbangers will have a permanent veto (unless or until a UI ref changes the status quo)

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

It could, but if SF would never vote for a border between Ireland and NI then it is not much of a risk of one so it is a safe bet from our side and shows our willingness to compromise to the UK.

Or howabout the people of Northern Ireland get to vote to continue the "special status" of being part of the UK that gets all the benefits of being in the EU, plus gets money paid from both sides, or to end the "special status". No mention of rejoining the UK etc because they will continuously be part of the UK.

Thr only people who wouldnt want this is republicans, because at the moment a United Ireland is within touching distance. But if NI gets special status like that, I dont think I will see a united Ireland within my lifetime, even though during that lifetime the demographics will swing more to a nationalist/republican majority

fash

Call me Al wrote: »

So The Times is reporting that the EU is proposing a "concession" of sorts.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296?s=20

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

Needless to say the unionists commenting really don't like this more democratic flavour of democracy.

I have some satisfaction in noting that I suggested it as an Irish/EU concession a few weeks back - in light of the UK's "undemocratic" assertions