Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

RickBlaine

All the commentary I'm reading today suggests that there is just about enough support for Johnson's deal, and both the 2nd ref amendment and the customs union amendment do not have the support to pass (the later by a narrow margin).

So unless there are serious issues found in the published legislation, it seems likely the deal will get through.

Akrasia

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What exactly did they win?
In terms of the result being carried out, what exactly is to be carried out?

The referendum was to invoke article 50
Article 50 was invoked and the brexiters have spent 3 years arguing amongst themselves over how they should leave the EU.

You have people like 'Nick Ferarri' interviewing 'remainers' in the most condescending tones imaginable about having to 'respect the referendum' when the UK has done nothing else for the past 3 years except try to implement brexit. Only a loon could think 'the will of the people' has been ignored. It hasn't been ignored, and the UK already is £50 billion worse off to show for it.

Nick Ferarri used the analogy of a divorce last week when he was interviewing Jo Swinson. He said that when you decide to divorce someone, you don't spend ages negotiating a deal, you just get it done.
This is absolute nonsense. Getting divorced can involve years of bitter negotiating and often one party has a court mandated settlement imposed on them for the rest of their working life.

Nick Ferarri's divorce analogy is like a Married man with a family and a family owned business just telling his wife he is divorcing her, and walking away from the family, the mortgage and refusing to pay any maintanance for his children.

And then still turning up for work on Monday and expecting to share an office and draw a salary as if nothing has happened.

trellheim

All the commentary I'm reading today suggests that there is just about enough support for Johnson's deal, and both the 2nd ref amendment and the customs union amendment do not have the support to pass (the later by a narrow margin).

So unless there are serious issues found in the published legislation, it seems likely the deal will get through.

No-one has seen the bill as yet

Zubeneschamali

RickBlaine wrote: »

So unless there are serious issues found in the published legislation

100 pages of legal text which the government have been hiding in a drawer for a year...

I think the chances of "serious issues" are pretty close to 100%.

Kermit.de.frog

Not enough numbers for either 2nd ref or customs union seems to be concensus. So they should just get on with it then.

Letwin_Larry

liamtech wrote: »

That should really be the actual tag line for Brexit

Brexit in 3 words - 'Repetitive and disorderly'

and really silly?

Tacitus Kilgore

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not enough numbers for either 2nd ref or customs union seems to be concensus. So they should just get on with it then.

Get on with what? :pac:


They can't even agree their own deals, how in the hell are they supposed to get on with "it" when they haven't a bulls notion what "it" is.

Danzy

There is a deal that Brussels and Dublin are reasonably happy with.

That the British Gov't are reasonably happy with.

It has a good chance of passing.

2nd referendums and all the trouble that entails for ourselves and the EU, nevermind Britain, other bills do not have enough support.

Get this passed needs to be the message from Brussels and they are letting it be known that they are frustrated that it hasn't been passed.

Duane Dibbley

Is today another wasted Brexit day or is something of importance going to happen?

Tea Shock

Barclay's aloof dismissing of the questions being posed is grating!

is_that_so

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

Is today another wasted Brexit day or is something of importance going to happen?

If you have to ask it's the former!

Strazdas

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

Is today another wasted Brexit day or is something of importance going to happen?

Nothing going to happen today anyway (or tomorrow).

SeaBreezes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

100 pages of legal text which the government have been hiding in a drawer for a year...

I think the chances of "serious issues" are pretty close to 100%.

Apparently, there is also a gov study on effects of this bill on UK. Not going to be released until after the vote.. I wonder why...

woohoo!!!

So we can anticipate all sorts of amendments sought to be stuck onto the deal, unicorns one might suggest

Letwin_Larry

i think we're heading for a GE and/or 2nd Ref.
i cant see any other way out of this morass.

let the games commence .....

Danzy

woohoo!!! wrote: »

So we can anticipate all sorts of amendments sought to be stuck onto the deal, unicorns one might suggest

Enough to kill it as far as the EU and Johnson are concerned.

If it doesn't go through this week, it'll have to move to forcing a general election and is that possible.

Brussels will give him the time if they feel he can get a majority and it looks like he would.

If he doesn't this could go on for years.

Joe_ Public

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Apparently, there is also a gov study on effects of this bill on UK. Not going to be released until after the vote.. I wonder why...

What chance another conscientious whistleblower intervenes? Would be scoop of the decade for some reporter or paper.

threeball

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i think we're heading for a GE and/or 2nd Ref.
i cant see any other way out of this morass.

let the games commence .....

Whatever a GE might solve, in that Boris might get a majority, a 2nd Referendum will only make things worse. If that happens you can expect civil unrest, years of politicians looking for 2nd and 3rd confirmatory referendums and god knows what else. Most the Brexiteers will be dead by the time it ends

devnull

Bercow has pointed out big own goal here by Cummings.

Because there has been Queen speech, then tabling
a motion for second referendum is permissible as its a different session but might not have been possible with no Queens speech.

Isn't Cummings supposed to be a genius?

threeball

devnull wrote: »

Bercow has pointed out big own goal here by Cummings.

Because there has been Queen speech, then tabling
a motion for second referendum is permissible as its a different session but might not have been possible with no Queens speech.

Isn't Cummings supposed to be a genius?

The lad is Bannon lite. Breitbart journalist is about his level.

GM228

Good point made by Chris Leslie that Johnson's duties under the Benn Act go beyond that of simply sending the letter, a point often overlooked (especially in recent days), and of course deflected by Barclay.

He has a duty under the Act to "seek to obtain an extension", best endeavour and good faith must be used to seek and obtain an extension, it's no wonder the Scottish courts are still staying on this until the end of the month.

Danzy

devnull wrote: »

Bercow has pointed out big own goal here by Cummings.

Because there has been Queen speech, then tabling
a motion for second referendum is permissible as its a different session but might not have been possible with no Queens speech.

Isn't Cummings supposed to be a genius?

2nd referendum is unlikely to pass.

This is hardly a revelation though on motions in different sessions.

Danzy

GM228 wrote: »

Good point made by Kris Leslie that Johnson's duties under the Benn Act go beyond that of simply sending the letter, a point often overlooked (especially in recent days).

He has a duty under the Act to "seek to obtain an extension", best endeavour and good faith must be used to seek and obtain an extension, it's no wonder the Scottish courts are still staying on this until the end of the month.

The EU are going to try not to give an extension, that would make the deal less likely to pass.

The German foreign minister said a short, technical extension to facilitate the deal being passed is all they are onsidering at the moment.

He did however say a longer one may be looked at in time if the parliament continues to not ratify.

Presumably to facilitate an election.

Letwin_Larry

Danzy wrote: »

2nd referendum is unlikely to pass.

This is hardly a revelation though on motions in different sessions.

let's have a 3nd ref.
if nothing else it'll be great craic.

GM228

Danzy wrote: »

The EU are going to try not to give an extension, that would make the deal less likely to pass.

The EU27 don't "try", they either agree to an extension or they don't, what makes you think they will try not to? We really do not know what way it will go, but when you have prominent members like Merkel saying an extension will come I put more weight on statements like hers.

briany

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

let's have a 3nd ref.
if nothing else it'll be great craic.

The 1st ref was introduced by a majority Commons vote. A second ref would be introduced by the same means, as would a third. So, you have these Brexiteers who go, "Oh, well why not have 5 referendums?", and I say that the UK can have 5 referendums so long as there is the parliamentary majority to trigger each one.

Joe_ Public

Was interesting to read in FT that merkel made it a point to warn Johnson not to use threat of no extension to help his deal through at the summit last week. "Dont put words in our mouth," it quoted her saying. She is wise to all the tricks and will be aware of the continued danger of no deal. I have little doubt the responsible action will be done which is a long enough extension to fulfill what parliament decides this week.

is_that_so

GM228 wrote: »

The EU27 don't "try", they either agree to an extension or they don't, what makes you think they will try not to? We really do not know what way it will go, but when you have prominent members like Merkel saying an extension will come I put more weight on statements like hers.

They'll do nothing until they are required to. As McGuinness said there's no urgency especially with the shambles of parliamentary democracy that exists in Britain.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Please heed the charter:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

GM228

is_that_so wrote: »

They'll do nothing until they are required to. As McGuinness said there's no urgency especially with the shambles of parliamentary democracy that exists in Britain.

They are required to consider the request and give an answer, nothing more.