Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Labour is not backing the Bill. Starmer says they will be prepared to back it if the government "fixes the substantial cross-party concerns that have been raised about the internal market bill". Those concerns, I confidently predict, will include (but will not be limited to) the fact that the Bill will put the UK in violation of international law. The government will not "fix" these concerns and Labour will whip and vote against the Bill.

I wonder if any Labour MPs will vote for it? Or will any abstain? Hard to see but not impossible as we've seen before.

Winters

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder if any Labour MPs will vote for it? Or will any abstain? Hard to see but not impossible as we've seen before.

Im sure Kate Hoey would if she could

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder if any Labour MPs will vote for it? Or will any abstain? Hard to see but not impossible as we've seen before.

Unlikely, I would think. Opposition MPs will never suffer serious blowback from opposing a government Bill. That's basically their job description. Besides, even if you are Lexiter who favours hard hard Brexit and thinks the WA stinks, (a) the fact that you think the WA stinks doesn't necessarily mean you think the UK should violate it, plus (b) there is much else in the Bill for you to object to.

Peregrinus

Winters wrote: »

Im sure Kate Hoey would if she could

Ah, Kate! Ní dóigh liom go bhfeicfimid a leithéid arís ann!

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unlikely, I would think. Opposition MPs will never suffer serious blowback from opposing a government Bill. That's basically their job description. Besides, even if you are Lexiter who favours hard hard Brexit and thinks the WA stinks, (a) the fact that you think the WA stinks doesn't necessarily mean you think the UK should violate it, plus (b) there is much else in the Bill for you to object to.

Yeah that was my thinking too. Plus Labour, for now, seems somewhat more united than under Corbyn. It hasn't taken Johnson long to disunite the party though 80 is a massive majority. It will get through but the big stumbling block might be the Neil amendment next week and any concomitant rebellion. Funny, as I write this, all of the same words that I used over the past few years on this thread keep popping up. Amendment, rebellion, majority...

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, Kate! Ní dóigh liom go bhfeicfimid a leithéid arís ann!

Briseann an dúchas trí shúile an chait.

10000maniacs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, Kate! Ní dóigh liom go bhfeicfimid a leithéid arís ann!

She's straight from the Conor Cruise O'Brien book of political motivation. Nobody is listening to me so I'll start doing and saying more and more bizarre and crazy things and see what sticks.

Enzokk

Here is a letter from Maros Sefcovic to Gove and the request to change the Internal Market Bill or have it harm the trust they have built up so far in the Joint Committee and trade negotiations.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1305429886300041218?s=20

SimonTemplar

Is the vote on the Internal Market Bill today? If so, do we know roughly at what time of the day?

ath262

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Is the vote on the Internal Market Bill today? If so, do we know roughly at what time of the day?

2nd reading vote could be as late as 22:00 according to schedule on Politico.eu

Peregrinus

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Is the vote on the Internal Market Bill today? If so, do we know roughly at what time of the day?

Second Reading stage is scheduled for today. This will culminate with what is in effect an in-principle vote on the Bill as a whole. Could be any time today and conceivably they might not get to a vote today (though that's unlikely).

MPs who have grave concerns about the Bill may signal this either by voting against it or by abstaining. An abstention now doesn't necessarily mean that they will not vote against it at a later stage; an abstention could be used to signal that "I oppose the Bill as it stands but if you make some changes [during Comittee Stage, which comes after the Second Reading stage] I am open to supporting it".

Currently, Comittee Stage is due to be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

smurgen

Another one bites the dust. Fair play.

https://twitter.com/Rehman_Chishti/status/1305455985058816003?s=19

ballsymchugh

Starmer self isolating at home so will miss the debate, which is unfortunate.

maebee

Veteran Tory MP Gary Streeter confirms he will not be voting in support of the Internal Market Bill


https://news.sky.com/story/internal-market-bill-debate-live-johnson-set-for-commons-clashes-over-brexit-plan-12071556

Leroy42

It largely irrelevant whether they vote the bill through. The damage has been done.

Some of the commentary, particularly about the EU blockading NI and refusing 3rd Country status, is so out there as to show exactly where their thinking is.

This move showed exactly where the UK are. THey aren't going to get what they want, they know it and this is their attempt to wiggle out of the hole they have dug with the excuse that the EU were being really mean.

I see the phrase "the EU were not negotiating in good faith" in so many commentaries, with nobody actually stating what that actually means and how they define it.

The vote will pass, but even if it didn't, it changes nothing.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It largely irrelevant whether they vote the bill through. The damage has been done. . . .

I disagree. Damage has been done, but signficantly more damage will be done if the Bill is enacted.

Right now the UK is the truculent drunk threatening to batter people. That's bad, but not as bad as being the truculent drunk who is battering people.

ambro25

The biggest issue with the Bill getting voted through *with* the problematic clauses, isn't so much the reputational damage to the UK, as the precdent it sets for further topics of legislation, and the cumulative international and domestic legal damage (vandalism, really) that ERG-influenced and mates-sponsored Ministers could *then* wreak under those acquired legislating powers, gradually paralysing UK plc and foreign partners over time through ever-more granular levels of short-sighted and self-conflicting rules and requirements designed for short-term/ad hoc gain.

Like giving the keys of the Large Hadron Collider to Vicky Pollard.

An Ciarraioch

The EU may block London access to the euro clearing market, depending on the progress of the IM Bill:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-clearing-exclusive-idUKKBN2651XM

Hurrache

It's not that they'll be blocking access, it's that they may not be granting them an exemption and allowing them continued access despite them being out of the club.

paul71

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU may block London access to the euro clearing market, depending on the progress of the IM Bill:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-clearing-exclusive-idUKKBN2651XM

That says 3 months notice to stop clearing if that is the case does it mean 30th September? Sterling would dive if that happens.

ZeroThreat

paul71 wrote: »

That says 3 months notice to stop clearing if that is the case does it mean 30th September? Sterling would dive if that happens.

Crispin Odey and some others are hedging their bets (literally) on Sterling crashing I'd guess

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

I disagree. Damage has been done, but signficantly more damage will be done if the Bill is enacted.

Right now the UK is the truculent drunk threatening to batter people. That's bad, but not as bad as being the truculent drunk who is battering people.

I suspect the Bill will pass. There doesn't appear to be 40+ rebels. Also, any MP who votes against it will be a marked man / woman in Cummings' eyes.

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

I suspect the Bill will pass. There doesn't appear to be 40+ rebels. Also, any MP who votes against it will be a marked man / woman in Cummings' eyes.

They will literally be removed from the party - no "marking" about it. First purge the remainers, then the soft Brexiters, then the "r? Not illegal actions Brexiters" - who next? Those who don't smile enough for dear leader?

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

They will literally be removed from the party - no "marking" about it. First purge the remainers, then the soft Brexiters, then the "r? Not illegal actions Brexiters" - who next? Those who don't smile enough for dear leader?

Though I see Savid Javid says he will vote against :

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1305530076272955400

But yes, apparently Johnson and Cummings are now threatening MPs with expulsion if they don't vote for the Bill.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Though I see Savid Javid says he will vote against :

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1305530076272955400

But yes, apparently Johnson and Cummings are now threatening MPs with expulsion if they don't vote for the Bill.

Fair play to Javid.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

Though I see Savid Javid says he will vote against :

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1305530076272955400

But yes, apparently Johnson and Cummings are now threatening MPs with expulsion if they don't vote for the Bill.

Javid is deludng himself.

It is indeed true that the U.K. was a close partner of the other EU countries, as he says, but people like Javid decided to destroy that and set the U.K. on a course where any agreement with the other EU countries is now seen as an act of treason.

That’s solely the fault of the Conservatives and they have some cheek to complain now.

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

Javid is deludng himself.

It is indeed true that the U.K. was a close partner of the other EU countries, as he says, but people like Javid decided to destroy that and set the U.K. on a course where any agreement with the other EU countries is now seen as an act of treason.

That’s solely the fault of the Conservatives and they have some cheek to complain now.

He was originally a staunch remainer and campaigned for Remain in 2016. Reading between the lines, like many Tory remainers, political expediency dictated a change of heart.

fash

View wrote: »

Javid is deludng himself.

It is indeed true that the U.K. was a close partner of the other EU countries, as he says, but people like Javid decided to destroy that and set the U.K. on a course where any agreement with the other EU countries is now seen as an act of treason.

That’s solely the fault of the Conservatives and they have some cheek to complain now.

Honestly think that the "not treating us nice" is to prevent accusations of being a "remainer" - Cox did something similar but with a "if what government says is correct..." I understand.

Leroy42

Its is the big danger that the people in the UK can't even seem to see that is staring them i the face.

Basically, this government is giving itself powers to ignore the rule of law. Do people really think that once this line is crossed they will stop with just Brexit issues?

This will be trotted out, if passed, as a precedent, that the PM needs these sorts of powers to deal with any crisis, with the definition of crisis being entirely down to the PM/government.

But people are so blinded by their desire for Brexit that not only are they unconcerned, they are actually applauding it!

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its is the big danger that the people in the UK can't even seem to see that is staring them i the face.

Basically, this government is giving itself powers to ignore the rule of law. Do people really think that once this line is crossed they will stop with just Brexit issues?

This will be trotted out, if passed, as a precedent, that the PM needs these sorts of powers to deal with any crisis, with the definition of crisis being entirely down to the PM/government.

But people are so blinded by their desire for Brexit that not only are they unconcerned, they are actually applauding it!

It's rather like the star wars prequels - where palpatine starting wars to end the republic - democracy ending with applause.