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

Jim2007

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

Because it does not function the way you want it? It's a representative democracy that is how it is supposed to work and it will produce the same kind of result as it does in most other European countries - a requirement to form a coalition government. It's just that the Brits have never been very good at being team players, but they are going to have to learn because that's the way the world works.

Zubeneschamali

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.

But they have already given up Northern Ireland, the €30 bn, and citizens rights, their bargaining chips.

Threatening No Deal in 2020 is just silly, like showing up to buy a car and threatening to burn your own money if they won't reduce the price.

Seth Brundle

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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?
...
that is the bottom line.

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

Just to clarify, did the decision to leave the EU mean leaving with or without an agreement on the joint future relationship now that 40 years of trade agreements sudedenly stop for the UK?
Otherwise, you're just posting childsh populist nonsense!

RickBlaine

Will there by any votes today or will they be tomorrow?

Hurrache

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

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.

24 hours for such a complex document, no matter who reads it, that requires scrutinising, as well as existing laws and contracts that are affected, that affects 4 countries, is ridiculously short.

I wouldn't sign off on complex specifications that I'm expected to deliver within 24 hours, never mind something that affects millions.

is_that_so

Jim2007 wrote: »

Because it does not function the way you want it? It's a representative democracy that is how it is supposed to work and it will produce the same kind of result as it does in most other European countries - a requirement to form a coalition government. It's just that the Brits have never been very good at being team players, but they are going to have to learn because that's the way the world works.

It doesn't function at all! Outside of this mess I largely don't care what they do.

Zubeneschamali

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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

They are not bound to honour it right now no matter what the cost, which is what you seem to be implying. This decision will affect the UK (and to a lesser extent, Ireland and the EU) for at least a generation, they should take their time and get it right.

moon2

The Good Friday agreement had a lot of scrutiny and they still managed to screw that one up. One of the primary rights it offers to NI citizens, the ability to be either Irish, British or both has been deemed inoperable.

Why shouldn't this significantly more complex document have sufficient time to scrutinise and ensure that existing laws don't render important aspects inoperable. With the current administration you'd nearly *expect* that to occur.

ArmaniJeanss

Hurrache wrote: »

24 hours for such a complex document, no matter who reads it, that requires scrutinising, as well as existing laws and contracts that are affected, that affects 4 countries, is ridiculously short.

I wouldn't sign off on complex specifications that I'm expected to deliver within 24 hours, never mind something that affects millions.

It has probably been cumulatively scrutinised more in the <1 day since publication than 99% of bills which meander through the house at a slower traditional pace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still on the side of stopping Brexit by any means possible. But I do think Remainers are being disingenuous in this case, and there's no reason for us outside the UK not to acknowledge this.

Borderhopper

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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

In the medical/clinical field, it can take from weeks to months to introduce a new protocol, even though it will probably improve patient care. Every thing has to be checked against current practice, tested to ensure it complies with legislation/current guidelines, cross checked with international best practice, there are consultations with stakeholders, training for staff, piloted to ensure it’s effective, rolled out and then audited after a period of time in operation to ensure it actually does the thing it’s supposed to.

It amazes me that a large document is handed to parliament, with the instructions essentially being “here’s the gist of it, don’t bother reading it, it’s all good, sign here please”. And this isn’t the usual process in legislation, with 1st and 2nd readings, committee stages, Lords etc. how can someone sign something without actually understanding all the implications of something that’s going to affect the country for the next 40 years.

I think we could be witnessing a Yugoslavia style breakup in a western democracy. The UK was founded on the conquest by England of its neighbours. And each constituent part of the UK has its own regiments drawn from the local population, with distinctly regional traditions and identities. The Irish Guards, for example, take great pride in their Irish traditions and were only sent to NI as the troubles were winding down, for fear of rebellion. Are the Scots Guards really going to Inverness to crack heads? It might sound melodramatic, but I don’t believe that England will honour any vote for independence from any constituent part. No country willingly gives up large parts of its territory, and the UK is no different.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It has probably been cumulatively scrutinised more in the <1 day since publication than 99% of bills which meander through the house at a slower traditional pace.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still on the side of stopping Brexit by any means possible. But I do think Remainers are being disingenuous in this case, and there's no reason for us outside the UK not to acknowledge this.

Look at the benn legislation. All the time they spent on that, legal minds poring over it, and still they ended up leaving a loophole that needed to be closed by letwin.

Its a fair point that remain mps will always vote against, but what of those mps - moderate tories in particular - who could be spooked by more fine print details emerging. Thats what gov is afraid of imo.

VinLieger

moon2 wrote: »

The Good Friday agreement had a lot of scrutiny and they still managed to screw that one up. One of the primary rights it offers to NI citizens, the ability to be either Irish, British or both has been deemed inoperable.

Why shouldn't this significantly more complex document have sufficient time to scrutinise and ensure that existing laws don't render important aspects inoperable. With the current administration you'd nearly *expect* that to occur.

Actually its completely operable but the Brits just chose not to correctly implement the required legislation for the last 20 years,

Leroy42

One only has to look at the lack of care taken over both the legislation for the referendum itself and then the passing of the A50 act to understand what the consequences of failing to properly understand the implications of a piece of legislation can do.

And yet many Brexiteers are calling for exactly the same now.

Take back control by not actually doing their job!

Enzokk

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.

Not true, Theresa May never published the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and she would have faced the same problem as Johnson because it is a complicated piece of legislation that undoes a 40 year relationship. She also took it to the deadline and also wanted to rush it through but she never published the bill so nobody outside of those that wrote it and May I suppose saw it.

Enzokk

The Wild Animals in Circuses Act were given a longer time in the House of Commons than this bill. Anyone saying there is enough time for scrutiny is lying to themselves about what is happening here.

https://twitter.com/jl_owen/status/1186336047975809030?s=20

ancapailldorcha

Surely MP's will see this coming a mile off, no? I mean, Johnson has established himself as someone who is completely and utterly ruthless and treacherous at this stage. It's fairly obvious that he would try something with this deal and now we know what from that tweet of Caroline Lucas' that Enzokk shared earlier.

Joe_ Public

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely MP's will see this coming a mile off, no? I mean, Johnson has established himself as someone who is completely and utterly ruthless and treacherous at this stage. It's fairly obvious that he would try something with this deal and now we know what from that tweet of Caroline Lucas' that Enzokk shared earlier.

Its not very credible that they expected to dupe mps in that way. I know they have contempt for them but they dont believe they all button up at the back. Question is as to the possible ulterior motives, have to be one step ahead of these guys. Seems the big problem for gov today will be with the procedural bill, wont get very far if they cant get that through.

Hurrache

So Jamie Bryson has launched an attempt to have a judicial review of the agreement based on that it contravenes the GFA. This line in the document is hilarious given the DUP shenanigans in Stormont yesterday

The respondent should give an undertaking that he will not distinguish unlawfully between UK citizens who reside in Northern Ireland from those who live in Great Britain

https://twitter.com/JamieBrysonCPNI/status/1186581773649616896

This guy points then out a few hypocritical tweets from the bould Bryson

https://twitter.com/Stephen40825524/status/1186586967594668032

CelticRambler

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

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?

They already did honour the result of the referendum. The UK voted to leave; the HoC formally declared the country's decision by giving notice to the EU under Art. 50.

Everything that has happened since then has been UK MPs squabbling amongst themselves as to what exactly "Leave" means, something that should have been defined before anyone turned up a polling booth in 2016. Theresa May's definition "Brexit means Brexit" has proven to be somewhat unfit for purpose (rather like many aspects of the UK's current political processes).

Akrasia

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.

Yep. As we've seen since the beginning of this car crash is that the Brexiters have no ideas other than to run down the clock, get to 'the last minute' and then try to force people to accept things they would normally refuse to contemplate at the barrell of a gun

[Deleted User]

RickBlaine wrote: »

Will there by any votes today or will they be tomorrow?

Meant to be two later on this evening. First is on the second reading, then followed by one on the programme motion. This is the more important one as it will determine whether BJ can stick to his 3 day timetable or not. If he loses it, his Oct 31st deadline is more than likely out the window.

Kermit.de.frog

The first vote tonight is essentially the principle of the deal. Pretty much certain now to be agreed.

That means regardless of whether they agree the 2nd vote on the timetable for scrutiny or not they will probably be out by the new year. Both customs union and 2nd ref won't have the numbers apparently.

ToBeFrank123

I think there is a vote on the timetable/program. If Johnson wins this vote, its a good omen for his deal. If he loses it, its back to square one.

liamtech

Ok so im gonna bring this up - Lets just accept the basics for a start

The Unionists and mainly the DUP behaved appallingly during the Ref, and subsequently by only doubling down, and then trusting and supporting BoJo
They support brexit, and for the most part advocated the ludicrous line that nothing would change on the border
The GFA, they consistently claimed, would not be effected at all by Brexit

Now we could take the obvious line that, look they brought this on themselves - told ye so - they are reaping what they sowed etc

But i am genuinely of the belief that just as a No-Deal Brexit would seriously cripple the GFA - so does this deal. It seems to me that the only way to actually sort this would be to have No Brexit (by what ever means possible) - or have the UKGBNI remain so closely aligned that it almost renders brexit pointless

Its emerging today that the term 'economic United Ireland' would actually apply to this deal - trade from NI to GB is effected but from GB to NI, well in that direction it is effectively NI importing from a foreign country - the outlines for trade show export licenses - import declarations
It seems that in avoiding a hard border along the six counties, they ACTUAL HAVE created a semi hard border in the irish sea
Given the way stormont will be seated (assuming it ever sits again) - NI will not leave the CU or SM, for the foreseeable future

So leaving aside the OBVIOUS fact that we said this from the beginning - is there any way to square this properly. Yes they are responsible, yes they voted Brexit - yes they LIED - but is this deal a runner? at all????

Shelga

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The first vote tonight is essentially the principle of the deal. Pretty much certain now to be agreed.

That means regardless of whether they agree the 2nd vote on the timetable for scrutiny or not they will probably be out by the new year. Both customs union and 2nd ref won't have the numbers apparently.

Why is the principle of the deal pretty much certain to be agreed now, when it looked like a razor thin margin only 3 days ago? If anything, Johnson is losing momentum?

Kermit.de.frog

Shelga wrote: »

Why is the principle of the deal pretty much certain to be agreed now, when it looked like a razor thin margin only 3 days ago?

Because Labour rebel MPs in leave or knife edge seats are terrified of their constituents reactions if the vote is not delivered ahead of an election...

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1186599924412141569

Letwin_Larry

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The first vote tonight is essentially the principle of the deal. Pretty much certain now to be agreed.

That means regardless of whether they agree the 2nd vote on the timetable for scrutiny or not they will probably be out by the new year. Both customs union and 2nd ref won't have the numbers apparently.

personally i dont see why BoJo/the Govt. is so hung up on the 31st Oct deadline. it's just a silly arbitrary date i believe.
give them another 6 weeks if that's what they need. i do seriously doubt their motivation for the delay tbh. personally i feel they are just hell bent on frustrating the referendum vote. that's just my opinion of course (before you all attack me).

so long as he gets the darn thing through and they move on, then i would welcome it.

Joe_ Public

Voting for bill to pass second reading isnt exactly rebelling in any extreme way, its just moving it on to committee stage for all the amendment fun to start.

They won't pass the timetable which is far more crtical as its the end of Johnsons do or die 31 oct brexit. Could even pull thre bill entirely at that point.

robinph

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

personally i dont see why BoJo/the Govt. is so hung up on the 31st Oct deadline. it's just a silly arbitrary date i believe.
give them another 6 weeks if that's what they need. i do seriously doubt their motivation for the delay tbh. personally i feel they are just hell bent on frustrating the referendum vote. that's just my opinion of course (before you all attack me).

so long as he get the darn thing through and they move on, then i would welcome it.

Because the leaders election was based on who could sound more of a believer in Brexit than anyone else. Absolutely no other reason for it.

Shelga

How can any Labour MP vote for this legislation, if the answer to the question “Will this make my constituents poorer?” is a resounding yes.

I’d rather resign/not run in next election. Let the ignorant masses vote for someone who will just say yes to self-harm for no reason other than staying in their seat.