Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

robinph

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.

Even if JCJ meant what you think he meant, it still means nothing and has zero bearing on if an extension will be granted or not...other than it might scare a few MP's who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic into caving in and voting for the deal.

If what JCJ said had any significance then does that mean we get to hold Johnson to his comment about being dead in a ditch in two weeks time?

ancapailldorcha

Juncker looks to have added more than what was reported according to Adam Boulton:

https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1184830781581074434

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Who are the idiot MP's who are against a bad deal and against no deal, but can't bring themselves to let the people have another say on the matter?

Do they just need someone other than Corbyn to be submitting the amendment?

moon2

prawnsambo wrote: »

House of Commons has passed a motion which either approves a withdrawal agreement or approves departure without a deal

I wonder if this is the loophole which people kept alluding to. The intention of the bill, from all reading, was that either a motion approving an agreement needed to be passed, or a motion approving departure without a deal needed to be passed.

What Boris is proposing now is a single motion which has two options: vote for this deal or no deal. By proposing this choice in the first place the Benn act would then be nullified as no extension request would be needed.

With that reading the lawsuit about the legality of bringing the motion forward in the first place is critical. The only way Boris would be legally obligated to request an extension would be if he can't table the motion he intends to.

robinph

Frosty Perception wrote: »

if Boris got to the people with this deal, he'll win hand down imo.
apart from political anoraks people are totally fed-up with this nonsense. it's seriously impacting people's lives, families, businesses, sanity.

he will got to the country with the slogan of "Get it Done!" and i wouldnt blame anybody for going along with that.

There is a difference between being fed up with Brexit and picking a bad Brexit deal just because to are fed up with it.

If you've been threatening to shoot yourself in the foot for three and a half years and then someone comes along and asks you "are you really sure about this?" would you still go ahead with shooting yourself in the foot just to be done with it?

Tea Shock

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

That‘s why I said some other trick. They can request the extension but ask the EU not to give an answer on it til they try pass WA II a second, and maybe a third time. They will leave with no deal if WA II passes and I’m certain they’ve thought of a way to also bring about no deal in the other eventuality

There’ll be twists and turns tho. The opposition aren’t thick. And neither are the EU.

They also asked for the perogation the second time to cover the possibility that they would be bringing back Teresa Mays exact deal a fourth time - they needed a new session to make that possible

There isn’t a single doubt in my mind that Johnson’s government have no intention of this deal becoming effective!

ancapailldorcha

Frosty Perception wrote: »

if Boris got to the people with this deal, he'll win hand down imo.
apart from political anoraks people are totally fed-up with this nonsense. it's seriously impacting people's lives, families, businesses, sanity.

he will got to the country with the slogan of "Get it Done!" and i wouldnt blame anybody for going along with that.

Seriously? If he goes to the public, he'll be annihilated. The way to stop this is cancelling it. Even if the deal passes, we'll be back to this nonsense when it comes to negotiating the FTA.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Juncker looks to have added more than what was reported according to Adam Boulton:

https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1184830781581074434

So I presume that Farage will amend his tweet then

Separately, the Economist don't appear to have much faith in the new agreement...
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1184779166576795648

Kermit.de.frog

We need a strong statement from the council that it's this deal or no deal tbh.

Time to bring this to an end.

Imreoir2

Bambi wrote: »

I could care less about Varadker when it comes to this, if he wasn't running the show it would be Michael Martin and I would have held him to the same standard. I supect you'll defend Varadker and Coveney regardless

All along our government had support across the board based on their two red lines:

They would not sign up to anything that could create a hard border
The Good Friday agreement could not be compromised.

When push came to shove they abandoned both on the basis that it might never happen. "Might never happen" in an era where Donald Trump is president of the USA.

It should not be withing the gift of politicians in the north to destroy the Good Friday agreement it was an All Ireland agreement ratified by the people of this island north and south via referendum not elections.

You can try engage in some jesuitical justification for this reversal but the reality is that they abandoned a position that had support right across the island. And people go on about Boris not being trustworthy.

I think you overstep the mark on our role as a country in the affairs of NI. As signatories to the GFA we have to vindicate that agreement and ensure that it is not undermined either through our own actions or the actions of the British, and we have done so.

It does not, however, give us the right to impose our will on NI or to decide their future for them. If as you say, the people of NI support the arangements agreed, then there is nothing stopping them from remaining within them. The British government has accepted that they cannot force NI out of these arangements against their will, neither should we claim to right to keep them in those arangements if they wish to leave. Only the people of NI themselves can choose to leave. If the people of NI do at some point in the future decide to leave these arangements, then that is their choice to make. We don't have a right to prevent them from doing so, however much we might regret such a choice on their part.

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So I presume that Farage will amend his tweet then

Separately, the Economist don't appear to have much faith in the new agreement...
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1184779166576795648

Why would they? It looks like May's deal reformatted with a new cover and Johnson to sell it.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would they? It looks like May's deal reformatted with a new cover and Johnson to sell it.

Starmer is pretty damning of it and it seems to be far worse than May's deal especially from an average worker perspective

ToBeFrank123

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seriously? If he goes to the public, he'll be annihilated. The way to stop this is cancelling it. Even if the deal passes, we'll be back to this nonsense when it comes to negotiating the FTA.

Corbyn and Labour will be annihilated and definitely lose all the Leave Labour seats, unless the Brexit Party splits the vote and even then.

People are sick of Brexit and Corbyn wants to keep it going at least another year at least and even then with no guarantee of a resolution.

The party who wants to get Brexit done will do well at the election. That's if there is an election.

There is no chance of Johnson and ERG cancelling Brexit. They've based their whole careers almost around leaving the EU.

prawnsambo

Tea Shock wrote: »

That‘s why I said some other trick. They can request the extension but ask the EU not to give an answer on it til they try pass WA II a second, and maybe a third time. They will leave with no deal if WA II passes and I’m certain they’ve thought of a way to also bring about no deal in the other eventuality

They can't do that without a new EuCo meeting to agree it. And a deal has to go through the EuParl as well. So the EuCo couldn't postpone a decision on an extension when they know there isn't time between a putative second meaningful vote in the HoC and the 31st October. And the Benn Act would already be triggered with the exact wording of the request stipulated in it.

The only way to get a no deal, is as pointed out above; a dual motion for the WA or a no deal if the WA is not passed. But I can't see that getting through the HoC. And it's like having a self-destruct mechanism built in. People wouldn't vote for the deal if they know that if it doesn't carry, it's no deal.

ArmaniJeanss

moon2 wrote: »

I wonder if this is the loophole which people kept alluding to. The intention of the bill, from all reading, was that either a motion approving an agreement needed to be passed, or a motion approving departure without a deal needed to be passed.

What Boris is proposing now is a single motion which has two options: vote for this deal or no deal. By proposing this choice in the first place the Benn act would then be nullified as no extension request would be needed.

I don't think this is allowed.
All acts must have a status quo option so you vote Yes or No where No implies nothing changes.
You can't have a Change 1 v Change 2 vote in the HoC.

LeinsterDub

Frosty Perception wrote: »

i agree but BJ is a salesman unlike poor old TM.

that said if this does go through (with or without an GE), she'll be spluttering into her Welsh whisky.

We'll see on Saturday if he's sold it or not. Based on the current talk he hasn't even sold it to all his party , and that's after he kicked out the unbelievers

ToBeFrank123

Sinn Fein support the deal.

If only there was some mechanism for them to vote for it in the HoC and hopefully kill off the prospect of a Hard Border.


Mod: this thread is not for discussing SF's abstentionist policy!!!

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sinn Fein support the deal.

If only there was some mechanism for them to vote for it in the HoC and hopefully kill off the prospect of a Hard Border.

As others have previously mentioned that would be sufficient to make sure that most of WM would vote against it!
SF, if they want it, would be better off staying quiet on the matter!

ArmaniJeanss

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Corbyn and Labour will be annihilated and definitely lose all the Leave Labour seats, unless the Brexit Party splits the vote and even then.

People are sick of Brexit and Corbyn wants to keep it going at least another year at least and even then with no guarantee of a resolution.

This is nonsense and not a chance of this happening. Labour will hold the bulk of their seats in 'their areas' like the North East or Welsh ex-mining towns. Voting for Brexit against the wishes of Labour was one thing, but these constituencies are generations away from actually voting Tory.
And on the other side of the Pennines the leave voting suburb constituencies of Liverpool are just not going to ever vote for Boris.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Juncker looks to have added more than what was reported according to Adam Boulton:

https://twitter.com/adamboultonSKY/status/1184830781581074434

I heard his interview at the time, I think it's much ado about nothing really. He was basically saying that if there's an agreement why do they need an extension, there'll be no need for derogation.

lawred2

Frosty Perception wrote: »

it's much easier to harp (pun intended) on about the Queen, and their glorious 32 county republic, tweet pics of victims of the troubles than actually engage in real politics.

the people get the politicians they deserve.

...this crap again...

Or they get the politicians that they desire. SF campaign on an abstentionist basis.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This is nonsense and not a chance of this happening. Labour will hold the bulk of their seats in 'their areas' like the North East or Welsh ex-mining towns. Voting for Brexit against the wishes of Labour was one thing, but these constituencies are generations away from actually voting Tory.
And on the other side of the Pennines the leave voting suburb constituencies of Liverpool are just not going to ever vote for Boris.

Labour definitely have an issue in their old northern heartlands. That was already clear from 2017 election where their lead among working class voters shrunk significantly. Corbyn is clearly trying his best to hold onto them but it will be a struggle. They might not necessarily vote Tory but they could go brexit party or simply not turn out at all.

Rjd2

boggerman1 wrote: »

Nigal will support whatever Arron banks tells him to support

Arron Banks on twitter is backing the deal tbf.

Farage defending the Benn Act so vigorously is a plot twist I don't think anyone seen coming.

Sam Russell

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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

That is nonsense.

There is no election due until 2022 under the FTPA and under normal circumstances if the Gov had a working majority. The Tories are disintegrating midterm and now, without the FTPA, they would call a GE, but cannot because they do not have the votes.

That is how the HoC works. The Gov needs to have a majority - but they currently do not, so they can be pushed around by the opposition.

brick tamland

Frosty Perception wrote: »

i agree but BJ is a salesman unlike poor old TM.

that said if this does go through (with or without an GE), she'll be spluttering into her Welsh whisky.

Wonder will TM vote for BJs deal now. Itd be a tough pill to swallow.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Labour definitely have an issue in their old northern heartlands. That was already clear from 2017 election where their lead among working class voters shrunk significantly. Corbyn is clearly trying his best to hold onto them but it will be a struggle. They might not necessarily vote Tory but they could go brexit party or simply not turn out at all.

I would say BP would get the votes more than any other party in Leave constituencies among leave voters. Which probably wouldn't amount to seats. But it could weaken the Labour vote substantially and that could benefit another party like the Tories. And the same could happen in Labour remain constituencies like Corbyn's own one or Kate Hoey's.

Rjd2

prawnsambo wrote: »

I would say BP would get the votes more than any other party in Leave constituencies among leave voters. Which probably wouldn't amount to seats. But it could weaken the Labour vote substantially and that could benefit another party like the Tories. And the same could happen in Labour remain constituencies like Corbyn's own one or Kate Hoey's.

Hoey is in the safest of safest seats I think.

From what I have read while Lib Dems will target many seats, realistically their is only a few Labour seats they have a realistic chance in.

However Tory held seats at least 20 or so vulnerable ones.

prawnsambo

Rjd2 wrote: »

Hoey is in the safest of safest seats I think.

From what I have read while Lib Dems will target many seats, realistically their is only a few Labour seats they have a realistic chance in.

However Tory held seats at least 20 or so vulnerable ones.

Last time I checked, I thought Hoey's seat in Vauxhall was one that voted remain.

Edit: Yep. 77.6% remain.

Professor Genius

Paddypower odds on deal passing is 5/6. Also 5/6 on not passing

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would they? It looks like May's deal reformatted with a new cover and Johnson to sell it.

It's much worse than May's deal actually. The UK wide backstop was hugely important for the UK economey. Under the Johnson deal GB will be in hard Brexit territory in just over a year, instead of tied to the SU and CM while a trade deal is done.