nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Yeah the DUP are firefighting now. Between changes on 21st and potentially being sidelined here they're going to look pretty stupid to their base if both of these things come to fruition.

woohoo!!!

Say there's a deal agreed and it goes to HoC and gets voted down, I think there's very little prospect of the EU27 agreeing to another extension. Johnson is betting on it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Arlene just been grilled on BBC NI and it doesn't sound like they're on board with an agreement. She was also not keen on the idea of a referendum on any deal. Also couldn't give a yes or no answer either on whether she trusted Johnson.

is_that_so

J Mysterio wrote: »

I would think, i presume.

And another 11 characters wouldn't kill him?

sliabh 1956

Amazing how Aerlene came across as almost pleasant in that interview she looks deflated just like Paisley jnr last night forgive me for smiling and thinking good enough for you and your fellow DUPs Id say Mr Harris is over come with grief at the way his beloved Unionists have been so badly treated no doubt he wiil blame Covney for this outrage

is_that_so

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Arlene just been grilled on BBC NI and it doesn't sound like they're on board with an agreement. She was also not keen on the idea of a referendum on any deal. Also couldn't give a yes or no answer either on whether she trusted Johnson.

Arlene is not keen sums up almost anything the DUP have to say.

Joe_ Public

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Say there's a deal agreed and it goes to HoC and gets voted down, I think there's very little prospect of the EU27 agreeing to another extension. Johnson is betting on it.

Wouldnt rule that out for sure. But i'd still be amazed if the EU didn't agree to the extension, i'm certain they will. They're not so slow in Europe to realise that the deal they're concluding probably isn't going to be ratified by the HoC, i dont know how much difference it makes to them at this stage. I think the EU will want to see at least a GE or, possibly, a second vote before burning those bridges.

gooch2k9

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But as per the Benn Act, that's what's already been set out to be done. It's a fair point, though, what will the EU think if or when another deal fails to be passed. I think most of the EU are still solidly behind a remain viewpoint, but that's by no means all and it could lead to some clear divisions emerging.

I just got the impression the Benn Act intended to force Johnson to ask for an extension if he carried on arsing about for a no deal right up until the end. Having an actual deal on the table muddles matters a bit there.

As much as the EU would rather the UK stayed(minus Farage's contingent in the EU parliament I'd wager), they can't go on negotiating for years about this. It's holding up a lot of more important things resources could be assigned to. I wouldn't be shocked to hear a few nations push back against any extension if that looked like happening.

briany

lawred2 wrote: »

I think the vast majority were always okay with the border in the Irish sea.

TM should have faced down the DUP, put the border in the Irish sea to a parliamentary vote and then publicly asked the DUP to accept the will of the parliament which they claim to hold so dear.

Her mistake was to never test parliament with it.

I could see May's logic in how she dealt with the DUP. Trouble is that it was that twisted logic which placed the party above all else. Pulling the ripcord on the DUP meant a minority government and it also meant that just about any piece of government legislation was on thin ice. I remember the DUP threatening to vote against the government's budget proposals last year unless they were kept sweet.

The advantage that Johnson has is that he's looking at a much shorter window of minority government whereas May was looking down the barrel of 18 months of defeat and humiliation if the DUP walked away. And Johnson's already got a minority with or without the DUP, so he's in a much better position to tell them to F-off.

That said, the DUP know they still hold the potential balance of power in parliament. The only thing is that they may mis-estimate how willing the government and opposition are willing to work together if and when things come to a head, and they'll be left screaming "No! No! Nooooooooooo!" as they're judiciously cast aside.

Infini

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Arlene just been grilled on BBC NI and it doesn't sound like they're on board with an agreement. She was also not keen on the idea of a referendum on any deal. Also couldn't give a yes or no answer either on whether she trusted Johnson.

As another poster once said, if the DUP dont like it, that means its acceptable to everyone else. The difference now is that karma has come home to roost, the assembly wont be back before next week as it will suit SF to get something that people want by default (SSM + equal abortion with UK and IRL) and to put the boot in that it was arlene and co who brought it about and the DUP have outlived their usefulness and will be thrown under the bus where they belong.

Tea Shock

L1011 wrote: »

So the ERG are throwing the DUP under the bus, as you vehemently denied was ever going to happen a few days ago...

I think you must be confusing me with someone else!

maebee

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It's ironic that this is needed
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-brexit-free-new-pop-up-channel-to-launch-tomorrow-at-5pm-11835610

It won't get many viewers from this thread

LeinsterDub

Does anyone give any credence to the theory that Johnson has no intention of honoring the deal and he's willing to do anything to get around the Benn Act? The theory goes that Johnson gets a deal, any deal and it get approved by the HoC as such the Benn Act has been satisfied. He then basically does nothing to enact the laws required for the deal to enter force until the 31st and the UK just crashes out.

Tea Shock

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Does anyone give any credence to the theory that Johnson has no intention of honoring the deal and he's willing to do anything to get around the Benn Act? The theory goes that Johnson gets a deal, any deal and it get approved by the HoC as such the Benn Act has been satisfied. He then basically does nothing to enact the laws required for the deal to enter force until the 31st and the UK just crashes out.

It was occurring to me and there is absolutely credence in that!

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Johnson should get eaten alive in the Commons if he brings this deal for a vote,

https://twitter.com/owen_g/status/1184130117435641857?s=20

Not only did May reject it but he himself called it the biggest humiliation since the Suez Canal for Britain. Farage will use this against him and he will still not get the Brexit Party vote in a election, if the deal is anything like the WA May negotiated.

Seems to me it's basically the exact same deal May negotiated. Obviously we have to hear more detail, but the hypocrisy is unreal. The most amazing thing is that the ERG etc seem to be rowing in behind it.

gooch2k9

J Mysterio wrote: »

Seems to me it's basically the exact same deal May negotiated. Obviously we have to hear more detail, but the hypocrisy is unreal. The most amazing thing is that the ERG etc seem to be rowing in behind it.

NI only was never voted on though? May backed down on that one and pushed for all of UK which ERG were against. Between that and them running out of opportunities to get Brexit done I can understand the change.

Not sure how much I read into Rudd's sexism point of view. I think were May in Johnson's position now the ERG would back her.

L1011

Tea Shock wrote: »

I think you must be confusing me with someone else!

Apologies, it was Mr.Nice Guy.

J Mysterio

gooch2k9 wrote: »

NI only was never voted on though? May backed down on that one and pushed for all of UK which ERG were against. Between that and them running out of opportunities to get Brexit done I can understand the change.

Not sure how much I read into Rudd's sexism point of view. I think were May in Johnson's position now the ERG would back her.

But seems like it's just like the original ('unacceptable') Backstop with another name. Pretty sure I recall Hardman Steve Baker, Francois, etc. saying they would not vote for the WA even with the backstop removed?

Something something Gatt 24 paragraph 2B.

gooch2k9

J Mysterio wrote: »

But seems like it's just like the original ('unacceptable') Backstop with another name. Pretty sure I recall Hardman Steve Baker, Francois, etc. saying they would not vote for the WA even with the backstop removed?

Something something Gatt 25 article 2 paragraph B.

I always thought that was the whole UK backstop, maybe I'm wrong. You are right that they said that though. Probably just bluster like "dead in a ditch".

Where did the Brexit hard man title come from? It's brilliant, himself and Barclay. Two hard men.

Mr.Nice Guy

L1011 wrote: »

So the ERG are throwing the DUP under the bus, as you vehemently denied was ever going to happen a few days ago...

I doubted that all of the ERG would throw them under the bus, which was what you predicted. And I'd still be doubtful about it. Let's see if that happens.

Tea Shock

J Mysterio wrote: »

But seems like it's just like the original ('unacceptable') Backstop with another name. Pretty sure I recall Hardman Steve Baker, Francois, etc. saying they would not vote for the WA even with the backstop removed?

Something something Gatt 25 article 2 paragraph B.

Francois actually put a number on the ERG members who would vote down the WA if the backstop was entirely removed.

He said 60.

It's like they have forgotten EVERYTHING else that was in it!

I am not trusting these cowboys one bit! Not as far as I'd throw them. Including Johnson - no, especially Johnson!

If the DUP start acting all reasonable after their meeting in #10 tonight, that'll be it for me. It will be confirmation that they are pulling a fast one! Them acting furious wouldn't ease my mind at all though!

Kermit.de.frog

ERG waiting for the legal text before making a decision

https://twitter.com/MarkerJParker/status/1184166377340444672

Spanish Eyes

Arlene will go with anything if the Cash for Ash investigation is dropped. Doh. There are ways and means. Probably involving another lot of dosh.

Oh and there is the introduction of SSM and abortion looming if they do not reconvene the Assembly very soon. Rock and hard place methinks.

Joe_ Public

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I just got the impression the Benn Act intended to force Johnson to ask for an extension if he carried on arsing about for a no deal right up until the end. Having an actual deal on the table muddles matters a bit there.

As much as the EU would rather the UK stayed(minus Farage's contingent in the EU parliament I'd wager), they can't go on negotiating for years about this. It's holding up a lot of more important things resources could be assigned to. I wouldn't be shocked to hear a few nations push back against any extension if that looked like happening.

The Benn Act states clearly that if a deal isn't passed through the House by the 19th, he has to seek the extension. Whether that's actually carried through with remains to be seen, but it is law for all that's worth.

I'm not sure how much the EU are bothered by the farage contingent to be honest, they're not even the biggest anti-EU nuisance in the parliament as i think there's a bigger italian right wing block there. They can make a lot of noise but without getting into important positions, not sure what damage they can do. Can definitely see a few European heads getting seriously whacked off with the whole thing all the same, but not sure it's enough to see them pushing back against an extension. If anything, i'd see them in favour of a longer extension than the one proposed by the Benn Act.

L1011

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I doubted that all of the ERG would throw them under the bus, which was what you predicted. And I'd still be doubtful about it. Let's see if that happens.

I didn't say all. Neither did you, actually.

What I said was that the ERG were using the DUP when it suited them and as that had stopped, they wouldn't be keeping their "word". Which is what it appears is happening now.

VinLieger

Francois looked pretty angry after leaving his downing street meeting, if it had been a good one you know he would have been singing from the rooftops, his refusal to say anything speaks volumes and suggests cummings has a leash on him

Joe_ Public

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Does anyone give any credence to the theory that Johnson has no intention of honoring the deal and he's willing to do anything to get around the Benn Act? The theory goes that Johnson gets a deal, any deal and it get approved by the HoC as such the Benn Act has been satisfied. He then basically does nothing to enact the laws required for the deal to enter force until the 31st and the UK just crashes out.

Yeah, that scenario been floating around a bit and no reason imo not to give it some credence. Which is why MPs have to try to ensure he sticks to the letter of the law of the Benn Act and seek that extension on the 19th, even if it's just to get more time to enact any deal legislation. That point has to be hammered home all this week.

Mr.Nice Guy

L1011 wrote: »

I didn't say all. Neither did you, actually.

What I said was that the ERG were using the DUP when it suited them and as that had stopped, they wouldn't be keeping their "word". Which is what it appears is happening now.

I said 'en masse' if you recall. And I also said no one would cheer louder than me if they were to be ditched, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Beechwoodspark

I just do not trust BJ. Never have never will. There’s some strategy going on behind this whole negotiation.

Tea Shock

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, that scenario been floating around a bit and no reason imo not to give it some credence. Which is why MPs have to try to ensure he sticks to the letter of the law of the Benn Act and seek that extension on the 19th, even if it's just to get more time to enact any deal legislation. That point has to be hammered home all this week.

In the past, and more than once, JRM for example, when questioned on why he supported the WA on the 3rd vote, admitted, in fact boasted, that he thought the UK could just tear up the WA once they were out! This is what the EU are dealing with here. The passing of a deal is all that is required to render the Benn Act obsolete. There are surely ways in which they can get to October 31st without passing all the legislation that has to go with it. If the opposition are not going to vote for WA IV, then they won’t vote for the legislative changes that give effect to it either. And nor does the Government have to

They can’t be trusted