Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Johnson and Juncker press conference is at 2:15. Hopefully some of the nonsense can be cut through. The Finnish are saying there has been nothing from the British side that comes remotely close to what the backstop would deliver in terms of certainty for Ireland.
Of course, is the SC finds the Scottish decision is correct and BJ lied to the Q then he is toast
Sam Russell wrote: » Which is exactly why the opposition should not allow one for at least six months. Whatever happens between now and then would be very bad for the Tories. Of course, is the SC finds the Scottish decision is correct and BJ lied to the Q then he is toast. If he does not resign, then a VoNC in him will force him out.
Usurper. wrote: » He needs an election,that's for sure
Peregrinus wrote: » Is there a plan for anything at all? Or did there used to be a plan, but it fell to bits when he overplayed his hand, and now he's flying by the seat of his pants?
Usurper. wrote: » There won't be anything concrete from Johnson this side of an election surely Is the plan for a extension and then a deal after the election ?
woohoo!!! wrote: » Certainly a possibility. At this stage if such comes to pass, it won't silence Farage and co, and it won't silence independent calls for Scotland and NI. So even in a best case scenario, lots of uncertainty, no getting pandora back in her box.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » May couldn't get a deal through, and Johnson doesn't even have her working majority. He cannot possibly get a deal through. Parliament won't allow No Deal. They will get another extension and have an election and eventually a referendum, revoke A50 and that'll be that.
Leroy42 wrote: » I get we all want to avoid No Deal, but it appears that Johnson, the cabinet and a sizeable portion of the UK electorate want no deal and at this point any deal agreed is almost worthless.
Tell me how wrote: » Brexitcast continues to surprise me with its jocular approach to the topic given 4 very senior journalists involved. Youd think by now they would be focusing on massively serious elements but they continue to treat it like a curious event rather than the serious matter it is. Part if me now thinks it's because they don't want to showcase the ineptitude of the British position.https://twitter.com/BBCSounds/status/1173174621161447427?s=19
GM228 wrote: » So would an incorrect perception be another reason for Scottish independence?
trellheim wrote: » Assuming theres some secret deal ( yes, a big IF) in sequencing a deal the EU will likely demand a confirmatory vote from Parliament prior to their acceptance of anything as thats what caused all the poo the last time. WA2 I cant see Labour doing anything but opposing it and if they do it can never pass
GM228 wrote: » The problem is whilst they have the numbers, they may not have the same keen legal eye's as Maugham, or that they don't believe his opinion (he does seem to be on the money though), or that assuming the SC decision goes in the PMs favour that when recalled on the 14th there simply would not be enough time to table an amendment, debate it, get it through the various stages etc in time. Maugham himself states the best way to bypass the flaw is:- Amendments may not be a realistic option, even if the SC upholds the Scottish decision, if an amendment was an option I think it would have been mentioned, he knows his law very well.
Imreoir2 wrote: » The cunning plan to end all cunning plans. It does of course ignore that the opposition have the numbers to pass a law to remove any such complication just like they passed the Benn act in the first place.
for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal
GM228 wrote: » A potentially interesting twist, J Maugham believes he has found a flaw in the Benn Act which could see a legit no deal in spite of the Act depending on other factors coming into play:-
The flaw arises in circumstances where the Prime Minister brings a Withdrawal Agreement (“WA”) to Parliament for approval. And it arises from the mismatch between the provisions of the Benn Act and those of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “2018 Act“)
What follows is a slightly simplified description of the flaw, to aid readability. To avoid the PM having to request an extension from the EU under section 1 of the Benn Act the Commons must approve the WA. If they do, on or prior to 19 October, the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension falls away. However, the provisions of the 2018 Act specify further preconditions, beyond approval by the Commons of the WA, before the WA can be ratified and No Deal avoided. Those preconditions are set out in section 13(1) of the 2018 Act and include the passing of a further Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement (the “Further Obligations”). Summing up, if the Commons approves the WA but these Further Obligations are not satisfied before 31 October 2019, then two consequences follow. First, the Benn Act will not apply to require the PM to request an extension from the EU. And, second, we will leave with No Deal. So, imagine the PM says privately to the ERG ‘support my WA and I will deliver No Deal.’ In those circumstances, with the help of some Labour MPs, the Commons might approve even Theresa May’s WA. The PM would thus have escaped the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension and could deliver No Deal. He could, for example, again suspend Parliament (subject of course to the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court hearing). There is some evidence (see below) that he plans to do this. And we would leave without a deal.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » 49% in a poll today would vote for a no deal Brexit:https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1173292897883570181
lawred2 wrote: » That poll is toss A 10% swing from remain to no deal? either the sample sizes are too small or the polling company is untrustworthy.
