Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Tell me how

Danzy wrote: »

If he has a majority he'll pass a deal easily.

Well, obviously.

Danzy wrote: »

Of course he wants to trigger an election, he'll win it.

I wouldn't be so sure. It is likely Tories will be the biggest party but assessment of this Deal could frighten a lot of people as to the reality. there was talk earlier in the thread about how he might be at risk in his own seat.

Danzy wrote: »

You surely don't Imagine that he wants No Deal Brexit.

No one still believes that will happen.

I would be strongly of the opinion that Boris would much rather a No deal than a 3 month extension with the current WAB being analysed in detail during that time.
JRM, Davis, Farage, Raab all would rather a No Deal than extension because they are terrified of losing Brexit altogether.

Danzy

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its not just passing the deal (numbers incredibly tight still, so definitely not easy) but what opposition will do to compromise it. If they wreck it, as is very possible, theres every chance johnson will just scupper the deal and pressure parliament to move to trigger that election. Thats what Stephen Bush is getting at - Johnson is actively looking for that to happen. Just have to wait and see, i just believe it might be perceptive analysis.

Of course he'll go for an election if the opposition block it or amend it to shi7. It would be amiss of him not to. It is the route to him getting a majority and getting the deal passed.

The EU are clear they'll facilitate Johnson as much as possible. They'll give an extension to stretch out to an election as well.

Danzy

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, obviously.

I wouldn't be so sure. It is likely Tories will be the biggest party but assessment of this Deal could frighten a lot of people as to the reality. there was talk earlier in the thread about how he might be at risk in his own seat.

I would be strongly of the opinion that Boris would much rather a No deal than a 3 month extension with the current WAB being analysed in detail during that time.
JRM, Davis, Farage, Raab all would rather a No Deal than extension because they are terrified of losing Brexit altogether.

No Deal wouldn't even pass if the ERG were the sole ones voting.

Joe_ Public

Danzy wrote: »

Of course he'll go for an election if the opposition block it or amend it to shi7. It would be amiss of him not to. It is the route to him getting a majority and getting the deal passed.

The EU are clear they'll facilitate Johnson as much as possible. They'll give an extension to stretch out to an election as well.

Its not in his power just to go for an election because he wants it. The opposition have to facilitate it, with a confidence vote or some such. So he's trying to engineer that scenario asap this week and that involves ensuring his own bill fails, done down by a hostile, anti-people parliament again.

Anyway thats all just speculative, lets just wait and see how it plays out.

Tell me how

Danzy wrote: »

No Deal wouldn't even pass if the ERG were the sole ones voting.

What gives you that idea?
No Deal or Remain, which do you think they'd go for?

Christy42

Danzy wrote: »

Of course he'll go for an election if the opposition block it or amend it to shi7. It would be amiss of him not to. It is the route to him getting a majority and getting the deal passed.

The EU are clear they'll facilitate Johnson as much as possible. They'll give an extension to stretch out to an election as well.

I mean if the opposition were happy he couldn't use it to sneak no deal through he could have had his election organised by now so that is largely on Boris.

Also a lot of the defections as he lost his majority were as he cut down his negotiation team and tried to push for no deal. Maybe if he had pushed for a deal earlier (or at least be seen to) he could kept enough people on side to have this pass.

prunudo

BBC breakfast had an interview with a guy outside Stormont about the marriage equality and abortion laws (didn't catch his name, who he represented or whether he was just someone looking forward to getting married).He made sure to get his opinion about the DUP across and all the things that we know about them yet isn't reported on the UK media I've seen. Everything from their tricks to hold up the assembly to them being British when it suits them, to all of a sudden being concerned about the GFA.
It great to finally see someone coming on and calling them out for the dinosaurs they are.

Enzokk

I don't know if this has been highlighted but if MPs vote through the WAB then the next deadline isn't in 8 months time to decide on an extension, it will be in 14 months time when the next cliff edge approaches and that time there will be no parliament intervention to decide on a extension or force one it seems.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1186415530401513474?s=20

Once the ERG were on board for effectively May's deal but worse you should have known there was a reason and this is one. They get their no-deal a little later than thought, those betting against the GBP gets their rewards a little later as well. The criticism of Johnson wanting no-deal that disappeared because be came back with a deal is back again front and center.

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't know if this has been highlighted but if MPs vote through the WAB then the next deadline isn't in 8 months time to decide on an extension, it will be in 14 months time when the next cliff edge approaches and that time there will be no parliament intervention to decide on a extension or force one it seems.

https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1186415530401513474?s=20

Once the ERG were on board for effectively May's deal but worse you should have known there was a reason and this is one. They get their no-deal a little later than thought, those betting against the GBP gets their rewards a little later as well. The criticism of Johnson wanting no-deal that disappeared because be came back with a deal is back again front and center.

This deal is better than May's deal, not worse. The big difference is democratic input from the assembly about whether the arrangements for Northern Ireland continue or not. The rebates on tariffs for businesses is also an improvement.

Could you explain why exactly you think May's deal was better because I genuinely don't see the logic?

Danzy wrote: »

Of course he'll go for an election if the opposition block it or amend it to shi7. It would be amiss of him not to. It is the route to him getting a majority and getting the deal passed.

The EU are clear they'll facilitate Johnson as much as possible. They'll give an extension to stretch out to an election as well.

Sure but the problem remains. The opposition are too chicken to hold an election and are keeping the Government hostage with the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Best option is pass this and call an election about the next steps.

Joe_ Public

theological wrote: »

This deal is better than May's deal, not worse. The big difference is democratic input from the assembly about whether the arrangements for Northern Ireland continue or not. The rebates on tariffs for businesses is also an improvement.

Could you explain why exactly you think May's deal was better because I genuinely don't see the logic?

There is this:

Projected hit to gdp under may deal: over 2%

Projected hit to gdp under Johnson deal: over 6%

Thats by the gov's own analysis. Brexit mps know they are making their constituents poorer but are voting for it anyway because....lets get it done!

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

This deal is better than May's deal, not worse. The big difference is democratic input from the assembly about whether the arrangements for Northern Ireland continue or not. The rebates on tariffs for businesses is also an improvement.

Could you explain why exactly you think May's deal was better because I genuinely don't see the logic?

I am posting on it from a UK perspective as we seem to be fine with the deal. It is probably a wash for us between May's deal and this one, it is better to have a NI only backstop but there will be more barriers to the UK.

For the UK this deal is worse, projected to have more impact economically and no protection of workers rights. The removal of the provisions on level playing field from the WA to the PD makes it likely to be dropped by a future government and thus even more barriers to trade with the EU and more impact on their economy.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Projected hit to gdp under Johnson deal: over 6%

Lower trade, and less money in everyone's pockets. If the UK crashes out with No Deal in Jan 2021 with tariffs on agrifood, Ireland will take a big hit.

It does the absolute minimum for now - no Border, €30 bn (if you trust them to pay up) and reciprocal rights for EU citizens. But it is a bad deal.

BarryD2

Momentum is important in politics as well as sport and life. Be interesting to see what happens in votes today. If Johnson has success, momentum will swing behind him.

He needs the support of rebel Labour MPs, what is the Labour Party going to do if/ when some vote with Johnson?

Letwin_Larry

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

Letwin_Larry

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lower trade, and less money in everyone's pockets. If the UK crashes out with No Deal in Jan 2021 with tariffs on agrifood, Ireland will take a big hit.

It does the absolute minimum for now - no Border, €30 bn (if you trust them to pay up) and reciprocal rights for EU citizens. But it is a bad deal.

I think its fairly likely the trade talks will hit loads of snags with uk gov threats of walking away if dont get their way (it's what they do!) and they could be facing down the barrel of a no deal gun come end of 2020. Depends on make up of house, of course, but what does parliament do and could numbers be there to revoke? What an absurd, almost surreal position that would be to be in, but by no means inconceivable.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

Couldnt disagree more tbh. From a party banging on about democracy for past 3 years, this seems to have a basic shortfall to me. Caroline Lucas made the fair point that they spent a lot more time debating the wild animals and circuses act. Once you start messing with conventions, its a slippery slope, but thats where we are with this administration.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

Check and scrutinise mean the same thing. It's a rather large document it takes time to check it for example sometimes the changes may need legal input or input from an expert

volchitsa

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

You can't possibly know that. Three days is nothing like the usual timescale for these things.
Remember that several months were to be made available for T May's deal, which never got to the stage of being fully examined. Now suddenly three days is fine for this one?

Anyway it's really not up to the party doing the "tweaking" of the contract to define how long is needed for the other party to examine it. By radically shortening the time available, added to various recent shenanigans like sending two letters instead of one, this government is creating the suspicion that this is merely yet another attempt to pull a fast one.

farmchoice

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

t Mays bill was never published this is the first time any of it has been seen

Hurrache

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

They've been crying out to view it for months but the government never published it, yesterday was the first time it was released.

And back in May, as Sam Coates points out, Johnson's own legislative advisor said it would take weeks to review and pass it.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186568444470276096

Igotadose

Regarding reviewing the WAB, has there been an official document from HMG highlighting the differences between the current WAB and it's predecessor? So that an MP familiar with the MV3 version from March(?) would only have to read a (presumably) smaller one?

I've seen a bit of news to that effect, and there are companion documents on this site: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-withdrawal-agreement-bill

but not clear if there's one that simply highlights the differences. I doubt it exists, so the burden really is on the MP's to wade through it along with the companion documents to understand what they're voting for. The notion that 'it's just MV3 with a few changes' is bollocks in my view, that's something manufactured by HMG and it's willing press mouthpieces.

briany

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

Works on contingency!
No money down!

Works on contingency?
No, money down!

______________

Sign, please.

is_that_so

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't possibly know that. Three days is nothing like the usual timescale for these things.
Remember that several months were to be made available for T May's deal, which never got to the stage of being fully examined. Now suddenly three days is fine for this one?

Anyway it's really not up to the party doing the "tweaking" of the contract to define how long is needed for the other party to examine it. By radically shortening the time available, added to various recent shenanigans like sending two letters instead of one, this government is creating the suspicion that this is merely yet another attempt to pull a fast one.

There's such a level of paranoia and trench warfare that what's going on depends on where you are sitting. The HoC hasn't been fit for purpose since the last election. Every little faction is determined to see their own outcome and care little what they have to do to get it. A form of Brexit is coming and this thing suggests an option to finally get started on it.

SeaBreezes

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

David Allen green (gov lawyer and EU legislation specialist) explains:

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186538899176382465

This 115 page Bill implements a 541 page agreement, which in turn relates to hundreds of UK and EU pieces of legislation and how each legal provision is affected by Brexit

Every single impact has to be got right

Immensely complex and time-consuming exercise

t has been irresponsible of government not to publish this Bill before now, in draft for consultation

It is yet more irresponsible for the government to try and to push it through the Commons in three days

And it will be most irresponsible of all for MPs to let them do this

ArmaniJeanss

If nothing terrible has been found in Johnson's WAB in the 16 hours since publication then it's probably safe to say that nothing terrible exists in it.

This document has, rather uniquely amongst boring government stuff, been subjected to exhaustive scrutiny by legal people countrywide overnight.

So its not really comparable to occasions when MPs were given weeks to read something in years gone past. MPs were the only ones reading this stuff back in the day. Not so today.

Letwin_Larry

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Check and scrutinise mean the same thing. It's a rather large document it takes time to check it for example sometimes the changes may need legal input or input from an expert

you could give the Remainers MPs 6 or 12 months to check, examine, scrutinize this Bill and you know they still wont vote for it.

farmchoice

is_that_so wrote: »

There's such a level of paranoia and trench warfare that what's going on depends on where you are sitting. The HoC hasn't been fit for purpose since the last election. Every little faction is determined to see their own outcome and care little what they have to do to get it. A form of Brexit is coming and this thing suggests an option to finally get started on it.

the day Theresa may got into bed with the DUP probably every single person in Ireland shook their head and thought to themselves ''she will live to regret that''

we were right.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

Legislation is extremely difficult to read and understand. It's not deliberately so, it's because it usually refers to other legislation, other parts of itself and sets conditions that may be in contravention of even more legislation. So each line, paragraph, clause and sub-clause has to be read with all that in mind. Just looking at that clause that Caroline Lucas posted, would give you a few minutes to read and understand the implications. And this bill is 100 pages different to May's deal. So the whole has to be read in conjunction with the new stuff.

Now they can break it down and work on separate sections in teams. But that may have the effect of some connections being missed and loses the holistic view that is often needed when assessing legislation.