Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

1…281282284286287…325

Comments

  • #8492
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Can't see her staying given cabinet members over the weekend murmured she may have to go soon.


    Ousting her won't get them anywhere though. Parliament is against May's deal; it's against Labour's idea for a softer Brexit. It's against remain. It's against no deal. But it's in favour of nothing.


  • #8493
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,046 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    woejus wrote: »
    "He who wields the knife can never be king"

    True. Of course Boris is loitering with intent as always


  • #8494
    Adamcp898
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭Adamcp898


    Enzokk wrote: »
    The new question now is will May survive the week? She has astounded me in being able to come back from the brink many times before but surely now this has to be it for her if she loses the vote tonight. She has said she will go and get changes and herself voted for it, then comes back with the same deal and tries to sell it as new and expects it to pass and keep her job if it doesn't?

    The pound has been reacting to this news.

    https://twitter.com/RJPartington/status/1105425643175579649

    Simply erasing yesterday's gains, no?
    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    He’s eyeing Number 10 I suspect

    Would be rounded on if he attempted that, quite rightly too.


  • #8495
    coolshannagh28
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    Nalani Crashing Scabies wrote: »
    You have to say fair play to Cox for not capitulating on this.

    Bollocks !, he has a big pair on him .


  • #8496
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Perhaps, but that was the case anyway, nothing changed last night.

    There won't be a perfect Brexit because its arguing the toss of the meaning of words at this stage.

    If the EU said in a legal document you can break the backstop anytime you want - brexiteers would still argue over what that exactly means.

    It seems like there will never be a meeting of minds no matter what words are used.

    This could be the last chance to prevent a hard Brexit especially if May is replaced by a hard line brexiteer which is very possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #8497
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,989 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    I didn't know that bit - that's interesting!

    The entire charade is even more ridiculous then!


    That was my understanding from Newstalk this morning, so take it with a huge pinch of salt. But it does stand to reason if the UK feels the EU is not engaging in good faith as they have stopped talks and they activate the arbitration, as soon as talks start up again good faith will be restored as they would be working towards a deal.

    In any case, even if they are able to get themselves out of the backstop they are still bound by their obligations under the GFA which means Irish Sea border. This is mental, we are exactly where we were before they triggered article 50.


  • #8498
    Enzokk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,989 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Adamcp898 wrote: »
    Simply erasing yesterday's gains, no?


    Does seem like it, especially if you look at this tweet.

    https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1105427618810220544


  • #8499
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,396 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    So as suspected the vote will be lost

    The big choice now is how long they would like the extension to be

    Of course the EU can largely dictate that to them

    Humiliation on top of humiliation for the Brits


    Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.


  • #8500
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,863 ✭✭✭54and56


    Cox's legal advice basically says the new legally binding documents reinforce the arbitration clause already in the WA if the UK think the EU are acting in bad faith but that's it. The risk that the backstop could remain indefinitely hasn't changed one bit and the UK haven't secured either a unilateral exit mechanism (only the independent arbitration panel could free them from the backstop if bad faith on the part of the EU is proven) nor have they secured a time limit to the backstop.

    In fairness to Cox (and to the UK political system) he has laid it out in crystal clear language without bias despite what must have been serious pressure from TM!!

    There are a few crumbs the DUP and ERG can cling onto if they are looking for a reason to climb down from their positions. The big question is do they want to climb down?

    I doubt it. They are classic hurlers on the ditch and are most comfortable shouting the odds from the sidelines rather than doing anything constructive about it.

    Can't wait to see the numerous and repetitive interviews Francois Mayeux will undoubtedly be giving all day where he will trot out his standard line that the EU has ignored the instructions the HoC gave via the Brady vote and "if nothing has changed you can't expect the outcome of a 2nd vote to change".


  • #8501
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    There won't be a perfect Brexit because its arguing the toss of the meaning of words at this stage.

    Cox's final conclusion in his document is pretty unambiguous
    In my letter of 13 November 2018, I advised that the Protocol would endure indefinitely in international law and could not be brought to an end in the absence of a subsequent agreement. This would remain the case even if parties were still negotiating many years later, and even if the parties
    believed that talks have clearly broken down and there was no prospect of a future relationship agreement".


  • Advertisement
  • #8502
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,726 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

    I think Juncker more or less said there has to be signs of something substantive if there is to be an extension.


  • #8503
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,385 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

    There was a veiled suggestion in Junker's speech last night saying if they're not gone by the time of the EU elections they'll have to elect MEPs, so you could extract that he may be suggesting that any extension will only be up until that point, if there even was to be an extension.


  • #8504
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Wouldn't be surprised if the EU refused an extension on the basis of there not being any point in one. Which could then lead to Article 50 being revoked entirely.

    If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


    The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.


  • #8505
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,798 ✭✭✭✭josip


    robinph wrote: »
    If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


    The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.


    I think someone posted yesterday that if the UK asks for an extension, the EU will ask "What for?"
    It's so ridiculous at this stage that I don't think the UK actually know the answer to that.


  • #8506
    bobmalooka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭bobmalooka


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    There is. 3 new documents. Written down. Legally challengeable. Progress.

    They're not part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the WA is all that's being voted on.

    But does the layman know this?


  • #8507
    54and56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,863 ✭✭✭54and56


    JRM is crucifying the current Brexit Minister (Barclay?) in the HoC committee.

    He's basically saying to Barclay that all the new documents clarify is that the UK can unilaterally ask the EU to leave the backstop but it cannot unilaterally leave and the UK has always had the ability to ask the EU to leave so what's new???


  • #8508
    Dytalus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    robinph wrote: »
    If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.

    Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

    Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

    The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.


  • #8509
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    josip wrote: »
    I think someone posted yesterday that if the UK asks for an extension, the EU will ask "What for?"

    Junker clearly stated last night that there will be no third chance, no further clarifications or assurences if the deal is rejected today. Clearly ruling out an extension for the purpose of getting further concessions/assurnaces from the EU, no?


  • #8510
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,396 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    robinph wrote: »
    If the deal is rejected, no deal is rejected, extension asked for (for purposes of getting legally binding assurances or some such) then the extension is rejected by the EU what happens then? I don't think May will budge on the cancelling A50 unless parliament votes for it to be cancelled, and nobody is going to put forward that vote.


    The asking for the extension vote that will happen tomorrow is just a yes/no on the extension, not extension v cancel A50, so is mostly meaningless whichever way it goes.


    Well in that case, I'd say it's either a No Deal or a revoking of Article 50. It seems that this is where we're at now. There are no more "legally binding" assurances to be given on the backstop, according to what Juncker said yesterday.



    I don't think we'll be that far from a revocation of Article 50 motion in the Commons if the deal is defeated today. There would be uproar, but they're fast running out of options over there.


  • #8511
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

    Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

    The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

    That's the risk alright if the EU rejects an extension. And given their mood they might well do that.


  • Advertisement
  • #8512
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

    Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

    The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

    There is a multitude of different votes they could have to provide a conclusive answer, if they wanted to. They are all just being deliberately thick though and not realising the pointlessness of voting for three different things individually in yes/no votes of which none are acceptable to a majority, therefore none will pass.

    All they need to do is have a vote between two options so that one of them must pass. I can't understand how they are all getting away with being so idiotic after all this time and no MP prepared to point out the obvious flaws in the process.


  • #8513
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,061 ✭✭✭✭briany


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Well in that case, I'd say it's either a No Deal or a revoking of Article 50. It seems that this is where we're at now. There are no more "legally binding" assurances to be given on the backstop, according to what Juncker said yesterday.



    I don't think we'll be that far from a revocation of Article 50 motion in the Commons if the deal is defeated today. There would be uproar, but they're fast running out of options over there.

    Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50?


  • #8514
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    That's the risk alright if the EU rejects an extension. And given their mood they might well do that.

    That's unlikely though. Juncker tweeted yesterday that they would agree to an extension. That, and Cox's negative opinion, should set alarm bells ringing for the Brexiteers.


  • #8515
    farmchoice
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭farmchoice


    Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50
    no it can be done without a vote, i'm not sure why this is but it has been explained here before.


  • #8516
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,396 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    briany wrote: »
    Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50?


    Yep, I'd imagine so. It's about the only unilateral move they can make - not saying that this sort of move is imminent, but it's not as far away as people might think, with the way things are going. They don't need the EU approval for revoking Article 50, far as I know.


  • #8517
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,919 ✭✭✭GM228


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Junker clearly stated last night that there will be no third chance, no further clarifications or assurences if the deal is rejected today. Clearly ruling out an extension for the purpose of getting further concessions/assurnaces from the EU, no?

    And he has stated the same again this morning:

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1105433411592818688?s=19


  • #8518
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,622 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    DUP is Rejecting the deal, a report at the BBC says.


  • #8519
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,247 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    MP Andrew "entitled to an Irish passport by virtue of being an Englishman" Bridgen saying he's likely to vote against.


    "Nothing has changed", "they'll be laughing in Brussels" etc etc


  • #8520
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    briany wrote: »
    Doesn't there need to be a parliamentary majority to revoke A50?

    Yes and no. Technically invoking and revoking A50 is for the executive aka May . However the withdrawal act states the UK are leaving on the 29th. So you could end up with a constitutional nightmare.


  • Advertisement
  • #8521
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Then it's a No Deal Brexit. This is why I hate the whole "vote on No Deal" they're doing. It's a waste of time, No Deal is the default of their current situation.

    Say No to the WA -> Vote on extension -> Either a No vote or the EU27 refuse -> No Deal.

    The only way to avoid No Deal either now or after an extension is to either cancel Brexit, or accept the WA. There's no point voting on whether No Deal is acceptable or not, it's an extraneous vote.

    It’s worth it to establish the scale of opposition to no deal, which will be very large. If May’s deal is rejected, and a request for an extension to Article 50 is rebuffed on the grounds that she isn’t offering any alternative way forward, that’s when a second referendum might become acceptable to parliament. Though May might pull the vote and reschedule it for the last possible moment, so it really wil become this deal or no deal.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement