Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If there is an election, Johnson will have broken his "out on the 31st" pledge and his "dead in a ditch" pledge, as well as adopting May's hated surrender deal as his own, with added backstabbing of the Unionist wing of the Conservative and Unionist Party by betraying the DUP.

The Brexit Party will run against the Surrender deal and eat into the Tory core vote, while Labour and the LibDems carve up the Remain vote. The SNP will sweep everything north of the border.

Anything could happen, including a Labour led coalition calling the whole Brexit thing off after a renegotiation and referendum.

The mainland British public don't care about the DUP and probably hate them at this stage.

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And if Labour get in, they will negotiate a 3rd deal and then hold a referendum and Remain.

This all costs the EU very little compared to the cost of Brexit actually happening, which will cost people in the EU billions of euros. Especially us here in Ireland, it'll cost us a measurable percentage of our GDP.

Far better to play along and let the UK fight with themselves for as long as they like, they may eventually come to their senses. And if not, well, this deal is almost as expensive in trade terms as No Deal, so we are not risking much long term.

There isn't a hope in hell of Labour getting in. They will lose a sh*tload of seats.

GM228

Well:-

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1184833950193213441?s=19

Indeed I think his comments are being mis-reported, not least because it is an EU27 decision to be made, not his. I think it was his personal opinion in relation to the new WA, not based on a possible objection of the deal and invoking the Benn Act.

By the way the new WA is already being challenged in the Outer House tomorrow as being unlawful as it appears to be contrary to S55 of the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018 which states:-

It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain.

In other news

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1184842483789901825?s=19

Last one is likely though!

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The deal is based on the parameters of the original backstop in 2017, and rolls back elsewhere to text agreed during earlier phases of negotiation. It seems like it’s all last minute, but it’s really just rearrangement of lots of things already worked through. Probably very few sections were written fully afresh over the last few days. They are leveraging all the work done the past two years.

It's 64 pages of the 585 page original May deal replaced essentially.

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The mainland British public don't care about the DUP and probably hate them at this stage.

Yes, but the Unionist wing of the Conservative and Unionist party includes people like Michael Gove and IDS.

FrancieBrady

Frosty Perception wrote: »

apologies. what i should have said is they are ATTEMPTING to ride 2 horses.
never an easy thing, and usually ends with a hard thud!

Sorry, that is wrong too...they never at any stage tried to represent business and farming interests, they ignored everything those interests were saying.

Their interests have always been, first and foremost, abstract notions of belonging to the 'Union'. A 'union' they will always be seen to have undermined and almost broken.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1184834973662175234

So much wrong with this I don't know where to start . Junker didn't say that for a start but even if he did . Does Nigel support the "surrender act" now , does he want an extension ?

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

The difference now is that any extension period will almost certainly involve a general election which could change the make up of the HoC, and change the negotiating strategy.

An extension with the same government and the same HoC would be ridiculous

Agreed if there is no election, it would be farcical.

If there is an election, and with fewer moderates like Grieve, Clarke and Stewart, the Tories will be further to the right and possibly in an alliance with a small Brexit Party. They will look to reopen new talks with No Deal in the background as a threat.

An extension won't achieve much. I think you could extend for another 2 years and still not find a deal that suits all sides.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The deal is based on the parameters of the original backstop in 2017, and rolls back elsewhere to text agreed during earlier phases of negotiation. It seems like it’s all last minute, but it’s really just rearrangement of lots of things already worked through. Probably very few sections were written fully afresh over the last few days. They are leveraging all the work done the past two years.

In fairness though the work has been done in a couple of very short sprints.

robinph

Panrich wrote: »

We have seen that in the past parliament has held indicative votes on several different types of deal from soft to hard Brexit and no-deal and they rejected all options.

Because only allowing yes/ no answers to a series of questions designed to find a consensus among a range of different views where no individual plan has a majority is a stupid way of doing things.

Tea Shock

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I also think it’s v suspicious

Likes of Gove and Rees Mogg praising the deal to the heavens

ERG appear to be happy

DUP doing a vow of silence

?!?

Something is up. Is it a tactic to lead to either no deal or an election?

Been trying to tell everyone this all week! If this WA passes, they can get around the Benn Act by failing to enact all required legislation by October 31st. If it is defeated as is likely, they will delay in the same way as Teresa May did....by bringing it back again or some other imaginative trick!

We knew all along they had a tactic. It seems most people have forgotten though!

The DUP don't need to say any more publically. They will be busily verifying Johnson doesn’t have the numbers

boggerman1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1184834973662175234

So much wrong with this I don't know where to start . Junker didn't say that for a start but even if he did . Does Nigel support the "surrender act" now , does he want an extension ?

Nigal will support whatever Arron banks tells him to support

Zubeneschamali

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

the Tories will be further to the right and possibly in an alliance with a small Brexit Party. They will look to reopen new talks with No Deal in the background as a threat.

In that situation the EU will just say No. Take May's deal or Johnson's deal if you like, unless you move your red lines we are not negotiating further.

A Labour led government would be a different story, since they would move the red lines day one and negotiate a much less damaging Norway style Brexit and then probably remain in any case.

WomanSkirtFan8

J Mysterio wrote: »

UK have already made a laugh of democracy. UK is in serious need of political reform (not to mind everything else).

absolutely. they need serious fundamental reform in both their politics and their educational systems both of which are extremely damaged or broken at this point. The old FPTP system doesn't work anymore for them so they'll have to try and come up with some new. Problem is, I seriously doubt that there's the will in the HOC to do that. :rolleyes:

prawnsambo

Tea Shock wrote: »

Been trying to tell everyone this all week! If this WA passes, they can get around the Benn Act by failing to enact all required legislation by October 31st. If it is defeated as is likely, they will delay in the same way as Teresa May did....by bringing it back again or some other imaginative trick!

The Benn Act doesn't allow them to bring it back for another vote. It triggers the minute a vote fails or no new deal is brought to the HoC.

DFS UTD

Hilary Benn saying he will vote FOR deal - if amendment for confirmationary referendum included. Letwin amendment coming on Saturday me thinks!!

Danthemanhere

So I'm was bored with this years ago and don't want to watch anything on it. Will someone give me the update? Are the Brits going to **** off or what's happening?

GM228

The Court of Appeal will be live streaming a Benn Act related Judicial Review tomorrow at 10:-

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryUK/status/1184838484693004289?s=19

It will be on at the same time the Scottish Outer House considers the lawfulness of the new proposed WA.

Interesting few days ahead.

ToBeFrank123

Danthemanhere wrote: »

So I'm was bored with this years ago and don't want to watch anything on it. Will someone give me the update? Are the Brits going to **** off or what's happening?

In summary, they've been shown the door and are clinging to the door frame by their fingertips.

GM228

Excellent summary of the new WA:-

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1184838369735577602?s=19

In summary he concludes it is worse than the previous WA.

Danthemanhere

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

In summary, they've been shown the door and are clinging to the door frame by their fingertips.

Well give them a boot up the hole and send them flying out!

golfball37

The Benn act is redundant now with JCJ saying there will be no extension. Its either Boris deal or no deal now. Labour will look ridiculous voting against this if no deal is the consequence. Cummins and Boris have played this thing beautifully from a political strategy POV.

FrancieBrady

GM228 wrote: »

Excellent summary of the new WA:-

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1184838369735577602?s=19

In summary he concludes it is worse than the previous WA.

This is reminding me of May's deal, as time passed to the HoC vote it got more and more assessment and as a consequence, undermined.

It will be in tatters before a vote on Saturday.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Excellent summary of the new WA:-

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1184838369735577602?s=19

In summary he concludes it is worse than the previous WA.

That would be a lot more effective if argued against Labour's plan, not May's which they didn't go for.

golfball37

golfball37 wrote: »

The Benn act is redundant now with JCJ saying there will be no extension. Its either Boris deal or no deal now. Labour will look ridiculous voting against this if no deal is the consequence. Cummins and Boris have played this thing beautifully from a political strategy POV.

There can be an extension. It's not up to JCJ.

GM228

golfball37 wrote: »

The Benn act is redundant now with JCJ saying there will be no extension. Its either Boris deal or no deal now. Labour will look ridiculous voting against this if no deal is the consequence. Cummins and Boris have played this thing beautifully from a political strategy POV.

I don't think that's what he is actually saying, besides it is not up to him to say that - it's an EU27 decision.

strawdog

golfball37 wrote: »

The Benn act is redundant now with JCJ saying there will be no extension. Its either Boris deal or no deal now. Labour will look ridiculous voting against this if no deal is the consequence. Cummins and Boris have played this thing beautifully from a political strategy POV.

Its obviously still uncertain how this will all play out but if it was their plan all along it was a nicely executed pivot in fairness

prawnsambo

golfball37 wrote: »

The Benn act is redundant now with JCJ saying there will be no extension. Its either Boris deal or no deal now. Labour will look ridiculous voting against this if no deal is the consequence. Cummins and Boris have played this thing beautifully from a political strategy POV.

The Benn Act is not redundant. JCJ doesn't decide on an extension, the EuCo do. And this is a summary of Section 1 of the Benn Act:

Section 1 obliges the Prime Minister to request an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period for the purpose of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, unless the House of Commons has passed a motion which either approves a withdrawal agreement or approves departure without a deal, and the House of Lords has debated the same motion. If such a motion is not approved, the Prime Minister is obliged to make the request no later than 19 October 2019.

Some strands of thought suggesting Corbyn won't muster the necessary support to tack on a confirmatory referendum. So if its a straight vote on the deal and its rejected, are we looking at an extension, an election, Boris to win a majority and try to get this deal approved again?


https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1184842987232223232?s=20

FrancieBrady

strawdog wrote: »

Its obviously still uncertain how this will all play out but if it was their plan all along it was a nicely executed pivot in fairness

Frosty Perception wrote: »

Can JC alone refuse an extension? and did he REALLY say that?
from the footage i thought he was referring to no more PROLOGATION by the HoC.

if you are correct, then i think it is Game, Set & Match to BJ.

Settle the head.

https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1184833950193213441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1184833950193213441&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boards.ie%2Fvbulletin%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D2058016732%26page%3D160