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

Letwin_Larry

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

Letwin_Larry

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

Joe_ Public

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lower trade, and less money in everyone's pockets. If the UK crashes out with No Deal in Jan 2021 with tariffs on agrifood, Ireland will take a big hit.

It does the absolute minimum for now - no Border, €30 bn (if you trust them to pay up) and reciprocal rights for EU citizens. But it is a bad deal.

I think its fairly likely the trade talks will hit loads of snags with uk gov threats of walking away if dont get their way (it's what they do!) and they could be facing down the barrel of a no deal gun come end of 2020. Depends on make up of house, of course, but what does parliament do and could numbers be there to revoke? What an absurd, almost surreal position that would be to be in, but by no means inconceivable.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

Couldnt disagree more tbh. From a party banging on about democracy for past 3 years, this seems to have a basic shortfall to me. Caroline Lucas made the fair point that they spent a lot more time debating the wild animals and circuses act. Once you start messing with conventions, its a slippery slope, but thats where we are with this administration.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

Check and scrutinise mean the same thing. It's a rather large document it takes time to check it for example sometimes the changes may need legal input or input from an expert

volchitsa

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

You can't possibly know that. Three days is nothing like the usual timescale for these things.
Remember that several months were to be made available for T May's deal, which never got to the stage of being fully examined. Now suddenly three days is fine for this one?

Anyway it's really not up to the party doing the "tweaking" of the contract to define how long is needed for the other party to examine it. By radically shortening the time available, added to various recent shenanigans like sending two letters instead of one, this government is creating the suspicion that this is merely yet another attempt to pull a fast one.

farmchoice

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

t Mays bill was never published this is the first time any of it has been seen

Hurrache

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

They've been crying out to view it for months but the government never published it, yesterday was the first time it was released.

And back in May, as Sam Coates points out, Johnson's own legislative advisor said it would take weeks to review and pass it.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1186568444470276096

Igotadose

Regarding reviewing the WAB, has there been an official document from HMG highlighting the differences between the current WAB and it's predecessor? So that an MP familiar with the MV3 version from March(?) would only have to read a (presumably) smaller one?

I've seen a bit of news to that effect, and there are companion documents on this site: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-withdrawal-agreement-bill

but not clear if there's one that simply highlights the differences. I doubt it exists, so the burden really is on the MP's to wade through it along with the companion documents to understand what they're voting for. The notion that 'it's just MV3 with a few changes' is bollocks in my view, that's something manufactured by HMG and it's willing press mouthpieces.

briany

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You and me have drawn up a contract and at the last minute I replace at random a few 'can's with 'can't's .

Would you want to scrutinise it? I mean it's the same basic document , why would you need to scrutinise it? I've only changed a few characters here and there

Works on contingency!
No money down!

Works on contingency?
No, money down!

______________

Sign, please.

is_that_so

volchitsa wrote: »

You can't possibly know that. Three days is nothing like the usual timescale for these things.
Remember that several months were to be made available for T May's deal, which never got to the stage of being fully examined. Now suddenly three days is fine for this one?

Anyway it's really not up to the party doing the "tweaking" of the contract to define how long is needed for the other party to examine it. By radically shortening the time available, added to various recent shenanigans like sending two letters instead of one, this government is creating the suspicion that this is merely yet another attempt to pull a fast one.

There's such a level of paranoia and trench warfare that what's going on depends on where you are sitting. The HoC hasn't been fit for purpose since the last election. Every little faction is determined to see their own outcome and care little what they have to do to get it. A form of Brexit is coming and this thing suggests an option to finally get started on it.

SeaBreezes

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

David Allen green (gov lawyer and EU legislation specialist) explains:

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186538899176382465

This 115 page Bill implements a 541 page agreement, which in turn relates to hundreds of UK and EU pieces of legislation and how each legal provision is affected by Brexit

Every single impact has to be got right

Immensely complex and time-consuming exercise

t has been irresponsible of government not to publish this Bill before now, in draft for consultation

It is yet more irresponsible for the government to try and to push it through the Commons in three days

And it will be most irresponsible of all for MPs to let them do this

ArmaniJeanss

If nothing terrible has been found in Johnson's WAB in the 16 hours since publication then it's probably safe to say that nothing terrible exists in it.

This document has, rather uniquely amongst boring government stuff, been subjected to exhaustive scrutiny by legal people countrywide overnight.

So its not really comparable to occasions when MPs were given weeks to read something in years gone past. MPs were the only ones reading this stuff back in the day. Not so today.

Letwin_Larry

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Check and scrutinise mean the same thing. It's a rather large document it takes time to check it for example sometimes the changes may need legal input or input from an expert

you could give the Remainers MPs 6 or 12 months to check, examine, scrutinize this Bill and you know they still wont vote for it.

farmchoice

is_that_so wrote: »

There's such a level of paranoia and trench warfare that what's going on depends on where you are sitting. The HoC hasn't been fit for purpose since the last election. Every little faction is determined to see their own outcome and care little what they have to do to get it. A form of Brexit is coming and this thing suggests an option to finally get started on it.

the day Theresa may got into bed with the DUP probably every single person in Ireland shook their head and thought to themselves ''she will live to regret that''

we were right.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i'm sorry but i just dont swallow MPs saying they dont have enough time to assess/scrutinize this bill.
i mean it's Treesa's WA with a few teaks and modifications (they said so themselves), which they've been debating for months.

this is just another excuse from Remainer MPs to seek to stifle Brexit.

and come the election, i believe the voters will not have forgotten this nonsense.

Legislation is extremely difficult to read and understand. It's not deliberately so, it's because it usually refers to other legislation, other parts of itself and sets conditions that may be in contravention of even more legislation. So each line, paragraph, clause and sub-clause has to be read with all that in mind. Just looking at that clause that Caroline Lucas posted, would give you a few minutes to read and understand the implications. And this bill is 100 pages different to May's deal. So the whole has to be read in conjunction with the new stuff.

Now they can break it down and work on separate sections in teams. But that may have the effect of some connections being missed and loses the holistic view that is often needed when assessing legislation.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

of course you would check it, and they have ample time to do so.

David Allen Green, a former UK government lawyer, has said on Twitter that he has read it and it would take him about 2 weeks work to be sure what it actually does.

Note that the Government could have circulated a draft for comment anytime during the last year, but they hid it in a drawer instead.

Hurrache

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If nothing terrible has been found in Johnson's WAB in the 16 hours since publication then it's probably safe to say that nothing terrible exists in it.

Export licences required for NI businesses to export to the 'mainland' for one.

Also, if no future arrangements made between the UK and the EU have been agreed by a certain date, the government can unilaterally leave with no deal without any consultation with parliament.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

they could be facing down the barrel of a no deal gun come end of 2020. Depends on make up of house, of course, but what does parliament do and could numbers be there to revoke?

Too late to revoke, they are out of the EU as soon as they pass this deal. The treaties cease to apply.

They would have to apply to rejoin - back of the queue behind Albania.

BarryD2

farmchoice wrote: »

the day Theresa may got into bed with the DUP probably every single person in Ireland shook their head and thought to themselves ''she will live to regret that''

we were right.

The faultlines were already there. Surely the basic issue is that Brexit is essentially at odds with the Belfast/ GFA. The latter was a fudge of sorts and possible as long as both the Republic and UK were part of the EU.

briany

Why is the EU waiting to decide about granting an extension? Mustn't one be granted anyway in order to give time to process supporting legislation?

[Deleted User]

Hurrache wrote: »

Export licences required for NI businesses to export to the 'mainland' for one.

Also, if no future arrangements made between the UK and the EU have been agreed by a certain date, the government can unilaterally leave with no deal without any consultation with parliament.

So we'd be looking at No Deal again at the end of 2020? No way the Brits wouldn't use that to get a better trade deal.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

So we'd be looking at No Deal again at the end of 2020? No way the Brits wouldn't use that to get a better trade deal.

I don't think they would. If Johnson passes this and then wins an election then it's GG as far as the Remain side goes. No deal will already have been legitimized by voting for the deal. I might actually have to email my MP now. FFS.

VinLieger

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you could give the Remainers MPs 6 or 12 months to check, examine, scrutinize this Bill and you know they still wont vote for it.

Which has nothing to do with why it needs to be scrutinised, god knows whats in there as the only plausible reason for not publishing it until the last minute is they have something to hide

Letwin_Larry

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If nothing terrible has been found in Johnson's WAB in the 16 hours since publication then it's probably safe to say that nothing terrible exists in it.

This document has, rather uniquely amongst boring government stuff, been subjected to exhaustive scrutiny by legal people countrywide overnight.

So its not really comparable to occasions when MPs were given weeks to read something in years gone past. MPs were the only ones reading this stuff back in the day. Not so today.

the longer this nonsense goes on the more it comes back to the fundamental question,

are MPs prepared to honour the decision of the Referendum or not?

regardless of what you think about the result of the referendum, the wisdom of calling it, or how it was fought and argued, how informed or not the voter were, how intelligent, educated, rich or poor they were, how much you like, trust or detest the protagonists, that is the real question, that is the bottom line.

and that will be the basis of the GE when it is fought.

is_that_so

briany wrote: »

Why is the EU waiting to decide about granting an extension? Mustn't one be granted anyway in order to give time to process supporting legislation?

No, they can wait until 31st October if they choose. They will sit out this week to see what happens.

farmchoice

briany wrote: »

Why is the EU waiting to decide about granting an extension? Mustn't one be granted anyway in order to give time to process supporting legislation?

well on Saturday night it was not clear what was going to happen plus every national leader needs to be consulted.
now they are waiting to see what happens, if Johnson was to have a good day today they might sit on their hands until Thursday. by then they will know the lie of the land.
a 10 day technical extension to pass legislation is different from a 3/6/12 month delay for n election/ referendum.

ArmaniJeanss

Hurrache wrote: »

Export licences required for NI businesses to export to the 'mainland' for one.

Also, if no future arrangements made between the UK and the EU have been agreed by a certain date, the government can unilaterally leave with no deal without any consultation with parliament.

Yes, those two were spotted quickly.
But my point is that that seems to be the extent of the bad things. There's no particular need to give MPs weeks to read it. Another 24 hours of every legal person in the UK poring over it with a fine toothcomb seems adequate to me.
Many MPs aren't particularly well-qualified to understand these documents anyway, legal minds are generally better.

If MPs accept the two negative points you've raised and wish to vote Yes anyway then that seems fair enough.

LeinsterDub

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you could give the Remainers MPs 6 or 12 months to check, examine, scrutinize this Bill and you know they still wont vote for it.

You could use that logic for any bill ever. Sure why bother allowing any scrutiny . A member of the government should just write a bill , stick it on the floor in the middle of the HoC and say Vote!