Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

LeinsterDub · 28-03-2019 06:38PM

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1111319086049443841
Seems you can't separate the WA from the PD. UK just negotiating with itself again it seems

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 06:39PM

It's like they're trying to get out of quickstand by struggling even more..

Laois_Man · 28-03-2019 06:49PM

Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?

johnnyskeleton · 28-03-2019 06:51PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?

Is it just the withdrawal agreement without the future arrangement? The two are seemingly inseparable as part of her deal. But yeah, its hard to say whats going on.

Maybe they are saying its just the WA so that it passes the speakers test, then the vote will end up being the exact same thing tomorrow after a quick amendment

Inquitus · 28-03-2019 06:51PM

If they don't pass the PD, then it gives a carte blanche for a Brexiteer led next Tory Leader / PM to cast brexit in their own mould, not sure the EU will be in alignment with that by a long stretch. No wonder the ERG are chomping at the bit for this now!

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 06:52PM

There might be opposition to even sit tomorrow. Farcical

Cosmo Kramer · 28-03-2019 06:52PM

This motion will be dead on arrival by morning. A really stupid attempt to cheat the deal through. Even the British parliament aren't stupid enough to fall for this one.

Itssoeasy · 28-03-2019 06:55PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Bewcow said it wasn't possible to repeat the same motion in the same parliamentary session...

So....how is MV3 not an identical repeat of MV1 - that didn't have any PD attachment, right?

My understanding is that the previous meaningful votes it was implied that a vote meant the WA and the PD, so that you voted for one you voted for the other.

This(and I'm haven't seen what was said in the House of Commons) Vote tomorrow seems to be explicitly saying that it's only a vote for the WA and nothing else. That's just what I think it means.

gooch2k9 · 28-03-2019 06:57PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My understanding is that the previous meaningful votes it was implied that a vote meant the WA and the PD, so that you voted for one you voted for the other.

This(and I'm haven't seen what was said in the House of Commons) Vote tomorrow seems to be explicitly saying that it's only a vote for the WA and nothing else. That's just what I think it means.

Sky just said some legal head stated that voting for WA is a vote for PD as it is referenced within the WA.

Appears a technical way around not being allowed a third MV.

Itssoeasy · 28-03-2019 06:57PM

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

This motion will be dead on arrival by morning. A really stupid attempt to cheat the deal through. Even the British parliament aren't stupid enough to fall for this one.

Well the EU did say that they had to vote again and depending on whether the deal was passed or not, then the dates of April 12th and May the 22nd come into play.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 06:57PM

DUP won't back, Labour won't back, all of ERG may not back. Can't see May has the votes

Inquitus · 28-03-2019 06:59PM

DUP defo against!

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1111326326450016256

Itssoeasy · 28-03-2019 07:00PM

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Sky just said some legal head stated that voting for WA is a vote for PD as it is referenced within the WA.

Appears a technical way around not being allowed a third MV.

Right. I'm not watching sky news so I'm just going on what is being said here. So why exactly has John Bercow accepted this motion for a MV3 tommorrow ? Did he say why ?

10000maniacs · 28-03-2019 07:01PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Great to see Euro-tunnel prepared to use smart border controls at the frontier.

https://twitter.com/mcgheeianmcghee/status/1110218554153074693

How does that system check for illegal or non-compliant products, contraband or stowaways. Etc.

Itssoeasy · 28-03-2019 07:04PM

10000maniacs wrote: »

How does that system check for illegal or non-compliant products, contraband or stowaways. Etc.

That's my question having looked at that video. That video just says it's a way to keep traffic fluid between France and England. The paperwork may be correct but unless you check any vehicles going from one to the other there could be anything or anyone in vehicles passing between countries.

Enzokk · 28-03-2019 07:08PM

It seems that the EU will be okay if the WA only passes and not the PD.

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1111327121417359361

In the first tweet we have the following,

'On N10’s decision to vote only on the withdrawal agreement, a senior EU official tells me that “only the withdrawal agreement is a must have for the orderly withdrawal. The political declaration is a nice to have”'

Here is a tweet examining the above,

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1111325247725363205

Basically, the PD will have no legal standing if May gets her deal across the line and she resigns. She will not bind her successor to the future talks and thus it can be changed. The EU has said this for a while, the backstop cannot be changed but the PD can. If anyone votes for her deal on the back of this after opposing it before they are a joke.

Headshot · 28-03-2019 07:10PM

I love the SNP they great craic in Parliament

The Brexiters will be melting down the coins tomorrow lol

FrancieBrady · 28-03-2019 07:11PM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems that the EU will be okay if the WA only passes and not the PD.

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1111327121417359361

In the first tweet we have the following,

'On N10’s decision to vote only on the withdrawal agreement, a senior EU official tells me that “only the withdrawal agreement is a must have for the orderly withdrawal. The political declaration is a nice to have”'

Here is a tweet examining the above,

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1111325247725363205

Basically, the PD will have no legal standing if May gets her deal across the line and she resigns. She will not bind her successor to the future talks and thus it can be changed. The EU has said this for a while, the backstop cannot be changed but the PD can. If anyone votes for her deal on the back of this after opposing it before they are a joke.

The PD was only window dressing to try assure parliament and the DUP.

Laois_Man · 28-03-2019 07:14PM

Disappointed in Bercow - he's obviously taken a smack down

Its a pointless farce anyway! It has no chance - just let them on with it!

Enzokk · 28-03-2019 07:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The PD was only window dressing to try assure parliament and the DUP.

True, which makes the opposition from Labour interesting. It is obviously just their way of attempting to derail the whole process and not allowing a vote as it puts pressure on the PM. The argument Starmer makes about it being connected has been shown to be flimsy but I think he would be aware of it. He is just trying to ensure that the vote actually doesn't take place which means she will have to do something drastic to get things moving again.

Headshot · 28-03-2019 07:19PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Disappointed in Bercow - he's obviously taken a smack down

Its a pointless farce anyway! It has no chance - just let them on with it!

It was obviously different and he had to let it go through.

The dog on the street knows there's no difference but from a political point of view there's a difference

Strazdas · 28-03-2019 07:20PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Disappointed in Bercow - he's obviously taken a smack down

Its a pointless farce anyway! It has no chance - just let them on with it!

I would imagine Bercow just wanted to show he is fair minded and is not being petty. He probably knows the WA has no chance of being passed.

devnull · 28-03-2019 07:24PM

There have been recounts on yesterdays votes after potential inaccuracies in counting were reported.

Nick Boles motion D - Common Market 2.0 - AYES 189, not 188
George Eustice motion H - EFTA/ EEA - AYES 64 not 65
Ken Clarke motion J - A UK customs union - AYES 265 not 264, NOES 271 not 272

So the Customs Union only lost by 6 votes rather than 8.

Inquitus · 28-03-2019 07:26PM

UK to take part in European elections is now favourite at the bookies versus not taking part.

Laois_Man · 28-03-2019 07:28PM

devnull wrote: »

There have been recounts on yesterdays votes after potential inaccuracies in counting were reported.

Nick Boles motion D - Common Market 2.0 - AYES 189, not 188
George Eustice motion H - EFTA/ EEA - AYES 64 not 65
Ken Clarke motion J - A UK customs union - AYES 265 not 264, NOES 271 not 272

So the Customs Union only lost by 6 votes rather than 8.

Indicative votes on Monday will probably show a majority for Clarke's motion - which will duly be ignored flat out by number 10 - yet another pointless day in the House of Commons!

Akrasia · 28-03-2019 07:34PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1111319086049443841
Seems you can't separate the WA from the PD. UK just negotiating with itself again it seems

It just gets worse and worse from those clowns in government. They spent a week saying MV2 was better than MV1 because of changes to the political declaration, and now theyre saying to support MV3 because it has no political declaration at all.

Its a total fiasco and if this passes tomorrow, there are an awful lot of people out there who have acted utterly shamefully having wasted countless billions in the costs of No deal preparations to simply accept what was negotiated in autunm 2018

Infini · 28-03-2019 07:37PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

Indicative votes on Monday will probably show a majority for Clarke's motion - which will duly be ignored flat out by number 10 - yet another pointless day in the House of Commons!

Not sure they will be able to at that stage. If the WA is voted down a 3rd time I'd say thats it, it'll be dead entirely that will mean that a CU or 2nd vote will have to be decided on as a way foward otherwise the no deal gun goes off in 2 weeks blowing their economic legs off unless they vote to cancel Brexit.

blanch152 · 28-03-2019 07:39PM

devnull wrote: »

There have been recounts on yesterdays votes after potential inaccuracies in counting were reported.

Nick Boles motion D - Common Market 2.0 - AYES 189, not 188
George Eustice motion H - EFTA/ EEA - AYES 64 not 65
Ken Clarke motion J - A UK customs union - AYES 265 not 264, NOES 271 not 272

So the Customs Union only lost by 6 votes rather than 8.

So Sinn Fein would have made a difference.

judeboy101 · 28-03-2019 07:40PM

Headshot wrote: »

It was obviously different and he had to let it go through.

The dog on the street knows there's no difference but from a political point of view there's a difference

QC on sky news says WA includes PD by default, its in the fine print, so the WA only vote is actually MV3, don't know how bercow missed it.

ancapailldorcha · 28-03-2019 07:42PM

blanch152 wrote: »

So Sinn Fein would have made a difference.

Mod: Don't bring up the Sinn Féin abstentionist thing again.

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments