Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

KildareP wrote: »

I’d tend to agree but this is a whole new scenario for the EU.

Up to now it had always been someone outside, looking to get in.
It didn’t matter how long it took because the third party was just that - a third party. Safely outside the confines of the EU with zero influence or power.

The UK are already inside, looking to get out.
They could pose a whole world of hassle for the EU if they were so inclined - some of the more vocal Brexiters have already threatened to do just that.
Veto anything and everything, refuse to pass budgets, refuse to appoint key postholders, disrupt and distract every function of the EU as much as they can.

They can’t afford to grant an extension then wait that out should the UK go full rogue.

That's based on the Tories being a majority.

.they aren't.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh dear, that's not how you build consensus.

The mo mowlam comments?

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The mo mowlam comments?

Yeap, I think she would be turning in her grave at Barclays faux pas:-

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1185505759905214464?s=19

Very ill judged comment, it could be said they are undermining all she worked towards.

GM228 wrote: »

Yeap, I think she would be turning in her grave at Barclays faux pas:-

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1185505759905214464?s=19

Very ill judged comment, it could be said they are undermining all she worked towards.

Seemed he was clearly using it to hsve a dig at labour - with the momemtum pun, i think an intended one - which was crass. But as per the jo cox comments, what more do u expect from these guys?

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Seemed he was clearly using it to hsve a dig at labour - with the momemtum pun, i think an intended one - which was crass. But as per the jo cox comments, what more do u expect from these guys?

Without a shadow of a doubt it was aimed at Labour.

"Politics should not be about scoring points. It should be about getting things done, making politicians listen and making votes count" - Mo Mowlam

I want to try and clarify this because it is slightly confusing for me, and i would imagine others

• The Benn Act means that tonight, if the HOC have not agreed to leave with a deal (one now exists), and has not voted in favor of leaving with no deal, then the PM must request an extension - i think one of my honorable colleagues:D here has stated that a dealine of 11PM is generally accepted
• The Letwin ammendment seems to be designed to support the idea of a technical extension to allow the legislation required to impliment the BOJO Deal be brought through the house, and passed - effectively said ammendment is for getting this deal done and preventing an accidental no deal exit as a result of slow legislation on Bojos deal (please excuse the meandering, this is complicated)
• The deal itself is due to be voted on, but i have heard it stated that the Gvt Bench doesnt want a vote on its deal today if Letwin passes

This seems to me paradoxical - and i am genuinely trying to wrap my head around it but with the Benn act IN PLACE - surely a vote today is necessary to avoid it coming in to effect??? and surely therefore the order of votes is silly in this case..

Vote on 'BOJO DEAL' - passes - avoids Benn Act
Vote on 'Letwin' - pass or fail - still benn act is avoided?

Generally i hope Bojo's deal fails because i prefer no brexit, as do many - but the sequence of today's votes is strange

i give way to you learned ladies and gentlemen

liamtech wrote: »

I want to try and clarify this because it is slightly confusing for me, and i would imagine others
.....around it but with the Benn act IN PLACE - surely a vote today is necessary to avoid it coming in to effect??? and surely therefore the order of votes is silly in this case..


Vote on 'BOJO DEAL' - passes - avoids Benn Act
Vote on 'Letwin' - pass or fail - still benn act is avoided?

Generally i hope Bojo's deal fails because i prefer no brexit, as do many - but the sequence of today's votes is strange

i give way to you learned ladies and gentlemen

the sequencing I read on BBC blog earlier...

This means there could potentially be up to four votes today, in this order:

Vote on Oliver Letwin's amendment: This would provisionally support Boris Johnson's deal but withhold official approval until the legislation passes. In the meantime, it would force Mr Johnson to ask the EU for a delay. The idea behind it is to avoid a no-deal Brexit if the deal later fails to become law.

Vote on Boris Johnson's deal: This is a vote on the main government motion - whether or not to back the PM's deal. It's expected to be very tight. This vote is expected to be cancelled by No 10 if the Letwin amendment passes.

Vote on Kyle amendment: If the above vote does take place and Boris Johnson's deal is voted down by MPs, we could move on to the Kyle amendment to the no-deal motion. It calls for a confirmatory referendum.

Vote on motion for a no-deal Brexit. This is the government's second motion put forward today. It's MPs' chance to vote in favour of a no-deal, although they are unlikely to do so.

afaik Benn Act kicks in at 11pm

ath262 wrote: »

the sequencing I read on BBC blog earlier...

This means there could potentially be up to four votes today, in this order:

Vote on Oliver Letwin's amendment: This would provisionally support Boris Johnson's deal but withhold official approval until the legislation passes. In the meantime, it would force Mr Johnson to ask the EU for a delay. The idea behind it is to avoid a no-deal Brexit if the deal later fails to become law.

Vote on Boris Johnson's deal: This is a vote on the main government motion - whether or not to back the PM's deal. It's expected to be very tight. This vote is expected to be cancelled by No 10 if the Letwin amendment passes.

Vote on Kyle amendment: If the above vote does take place and Boris Johnson's deal is voted down by MPs, we could move on to the Kyle amendment to the no-deal motion. It calls for a confirmatory referendum.

Vote on motion for a no-deal Brexit. This is the government's second motion put forward today. It's MPs' chance to vote in favour of a no-deal, although they are unlikely to do so.

afaik Benn Act kicks in at 11pm

Ok but that is my point! the part as follows:

Vote on Boris Johnson's deal: This is a vote on the main government motion - whether or not to back the PM's deal. It's expected to be very tight. This vote is expected to be cancelled by No 10 if the Letwin amendment passes.

surely that automatically

• triggers Benn Act - extension
• no deal has been rejected
• extension

Does Letwin over-ride Benn? If you will follow my thinking, and given those comments on the BBC

first Vote - Letwin Ammendment

• Fails - Government tables BOJOS deal - Fails - auto kick in of Benn Act - Bojos deal Passes - Benn Act annulled - UK Leaves on Bojos deal in 12 days
• Passes - Government DOES NOT table Bojos Deal - Benn act is triggered - extension

So my main lack of understanding is why No10 doesnt want a BOJO Deal vote to avoid Benn.. unless Letwin over-rides Benn???

ath262 wrote: »

not sure why he is doing this - I would have thought Benn act kicks in if they dont have a vote on the deal, unless Boris & co. think they have some sort of loophole figured out

Well im glad im not alone in not being able to square this

Starmer giving a commanding performance.

Water John wrote: »

Starmer giving a commanding performance.

If he was the leader of Labour they'd be flying high in the Polls.

ath262 wrote: »

from Mark D'Arcy-BBC

...The [Letwin] amendment would withhold approval of the deal, until the legislation to enact it was safely passed - a move that would automatically trigger the "Benn Act" and force the prime minister to request a further postponement of Brexit until 31 January. ...

So if that is the case, then Letwin TRIGGERS Benn

But would Labor/Lib-Dems/SNP be better to

1. AVOID Letwin - therefore triggering Bojo Deal Vote
2. Vote Against Bojo Deal CLEARLY, without it simply returning to the shelf as the deal the HOC did NOT Reject
3. If/When Bojo Deal Rejected - Benn Triggered

Why support Letwin - this really is just extending without a general election

This is the MOST confusing part of the Brexit process so far, for me

GM228 wrote: »

This is a pretty good point made, I would imagine the majority of UK citizens are under the impression that the WA if approved is Brexit done, little do they realise:-

https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/1185455746097373189?s=19

It's true that once the WA is finalized, the UK still the has to negotiate the future relationship and trade and this might well take a number of years. What is interesting though is those who now say that passing the WA is a way to 'no deal'. Ive been thinking about this and seems to me there is confusion on their part and a failure of nomenclature... They need new terminology as seems these guys are focused on trade only, and not understanding that regulatory frameworks and other basic agreements are set in place by the WA. My understanding is a future trade agreement will live under strictures as agreed in the WA.

So, in that context, maybe 'pass the deal for no deal' is a false argument? Possibly to entice ERG types like Francois? There is indeed a reason the EU broke the overall exit of the UK in to stages, with terms of withdrawal to be finalised before trade.

Either way, i think for most people, once the WA is ratified by both sides, there is a finality to that and Brexit is a reality. Arguments will remain and people will continue to be engaged, but to a much lesser extent and intensity.

I think the WA is the hardest part as what is agreed influences the future relationship. So e.g. if you rule out free movement of people, you rule out a level of access/ ease of access for trade.

J Mysterio wrote: »

It's true that once the WA is finalized, the UK still the has to negotiate the future relationship and trade and this might well take a number of years. What is interesting though is those who now say that passing the WA is a way to 'no deal'. Ive been thinking about this and seems to me there is confusion on their part and a failure of nomenclature... They need new terminology as seems these guys are focused on trade only, and not understanding that regulatory frameworks and other basic agreements are set in place by the WA. My understanding is a future trade agreement will live under strictures as agreed in the WA.

So, in that context, maybe 'pass the deal for no deal' is a false argument? Possibly to entice ERG types like Francois? There is indeed a reason the EU broke the overall exit of the UK in to stages, with terms of withdrawal to be finalised before trade.

Either way, i think for most people, once the WA is ratified by both sides, there is a finality to that and Brexit is a reality. Arguments will remain and people will continue to be engaged, but to a much lesser extent and intensity.

I think the WA is the hardest part as what is agreed influences the future relationship. So e.g. if you rule out free movement of people, you rule out a level of access/ ease of access for trade.

I wouldnt be so sure about the hard part being done with a WA passed. Look how amatuerish the uk have shown themselves to be in negotiations, can easily foresee a world of even greater pain ahead. And as per John Barron, all that keeping no deal on the table shows me theyre not learning from their mistakes.