Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

OK. Amendments can be suggested and taken back. If, for example, a 2nd Ref was added I’m pretty sure the EU would agree

Take back control, and all that

The EU can't agree another referendum. They would certainly agree an extension for us to have a referendum (so long as it included Remain as an option rather than the leaver fantasy of a run-off between No Deal and this Deeply-Flawed Deal (the ERG view).

 

[blueinsa]

Let’s start with a realistic timeframe. 5 years minimum. We can work up from there.

Revoke for now.

The next GE and people cant hide from it for ever will decide our future in or out of the EU.

Elect a remain government and happy days for you Bob.

Elect a leave one and this one really will be a leave one and the brexit will be a real brexit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I think you need to catch a grip of yourself here chippy, one of them was a fund manager Crispin Odey has connections with the ERG not just but Johnson being the most obvious one and here's another 4 https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/07/22/boris-brexit-and-the-hedge-funds-part-2/
There is and has been a number of hedge fund managers and financiers backing the tory party or are you denying that? https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/city-gave-birth-brexit/long-reads/article/1649027
Maybe I can't go through every single donation's and connection to the ERG but it is undeniable the Tory party is backed by people in the city.

"Most" has a very specific meaning which needs very specific justification. "Some" does not.

If it had been said, "Some of the ERG are fund managers or have close connections with fund managers", I would have had no issues with it.

My reply would have been "so what, who cares". And even if someone stands to benefit in some way from some political outcome, that is not in itself evidence that they are voting purely for unscrupulous reasons.

I have long held the view that people go into politics because of a deep desire to make the country a better place, not to feather their own nests.

 

[BobKowalski]

General Election is inevitable, let’s get it done, BJ will piss it, I’m no fan but the Tories will select their candidates based on their support for Brexit. Not sure if JC had the same backing, however it will put this boring, expensive episode to bed.

The uncertainty has already cost industry in the UK, I’m talking through my pocket, it’s not fortunes but to my small business it’s hit me enough to make a dent. Others will be suffering much more, sick to death of it.

The uncertainty won’t go away with this deal passing. For NI it’s hard wired in with four year votes and we will be sitting down to negotiate the next transition extension period in about 8 months time with a cliff edge of December 2020 looming. We will be discussing how much we intend paying into EU coffers up to 2022 with no representation or say. We are not remotely prepared for what being in transition will be like. It will be a constant drumbeat of dissatisfaction and agitation for years with our medium to long term economic, foreign and security policy in a state of uncertainty.

 

[Blue Hefner]

2nd ref is simply not happening as there are not the numbers.

Shit or get off the pot.

They have got off so revoke the fucking thing today and lets have a GE that will be your de facto 2nd ref because it will be a straight fight between leave and remain.

Parliaments make up has to be changed one way or the other.

I don’t think there will be a 2nd ref and I don’t think it will be particularly helpful either, nor do I think a GE would help much

Just give the MPs time to go through this and sign it off, if it’s as good as Johnson says it is.

 

[Bluemanc100]

so how was it approved in principle last night then?

It will now be transformed and become unrecognisable to the EU... then promoting success for no-deal surely

Having read other posts it seems the WA cannot be amended by anybody other than the UK Govt or the EU,, if true I see it being rejected by the opposition

 

[Vic]

For one, I think extending the implementation would get through and be accepted by the EU. Especially now we will be extending to January and will only have 10/11 months to implement. Sure there are other bits that would be waved through.

Why isn't the EU now insisting on a longer implementation period?

 

[meltonblue]

I think people are confusing the agreement with the bill. The bill can absolutely be amended, the vast majority are. It only needs Eu approval if there’s any amendment incompatible with the agreement, and not many of the proposed amendments I’ve heard are.

 

[George Hannah]

Don't know why. Revoking is far out of the equation right now. Only way that would come about is if the EU said no extension, you've got till the 31st to vonc and revoke or start making better no deal plans, which given how they've approached this so far seems unlikely.

I agree with recent commentary that we will see a short extension, and the bill will be passed over the next couple of weeks. The main spanner in this is how much truth there is in the story of Johnson and Cummings promising all things to all sides (let's be honest, chance of that are pretty high), and subsequently then how much the deal will wilt when examined properly (I'd say this is a pretty high chance, but I think worryingly people will suffer quite a lot of shit in the name of "getting it done").

You need to give more weight to the possibility envisaged in your third sentence. In those entirely likely circumstances one or more dissonant voices among the 27 will energise the Remain HoC majority to press the Bercow Revoke button to avoid No Deal.

 

[BobKowalski]

Revoke for now.

The next GE and people cant hide from it for ever will decide our future in or out of the EU.

Elect a remain government and happy days for you Bob.

Elect a leave one and this one really will be a leave one and the brexit will be a real brexit.

Happy to revoke. It’s the only strategy that makes sense whether you are leave or remain.

But we won’t revoke. We are in ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ mode. We are aware it’s futile but powerless to make it stop. We will eventually pass this deal in some form or other and we will ‘Brexit’ but the Brexit we have will be the one that satisfies the EU.

We lost this war when we lost the sequencing argument back in 2017. And we lost because Article 50 was a trap designed to maximise leverage by building in artificial time constraints. We compounded this by then imposing our own time constraints and then building them into the WA over the next few years. Talk about doubling down on a losing strategy. The emotional desire by Brexiteers to rid themselves of the EU is being weaponised and used against us.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Not Brexity enough for Farage and too hard-Brexit for others. A General Election will solve nothing other than people voting for parties on one issue when we have real problems in the country - if the want to go the people have a 2nd Ref but they won't because Remain will win and Leave will start all over again so will also solve nothing. In short, get used to this and no actual governing being done for a while



Also Heleltine's view. Slightly different

 

[blueparrot]

Why isn't the EU now insisting on a longer implementation period?

Good question, maybe it's one of the things that got missed in the copying and pasting Mays deal when rushing for this deal. That's why it needs proper time and scrutiny. As I understand the EU haven't started yet while waiting to see what we do.

 

[BobKowalski]

Why isn't the EU now insisting on a longer implementation period?

Shorter timeframes give the EU leverage. In order to meet the timeframes the weaker party tends to concede. Johnson promised to leave by 31st Oct and in order to do so he compromised on something ‘No British PM could ever agree to’ namely the sanctity of our Union.

 

[George Hannah]

Why isn't the EU now insisting on a longer implementation period?

Not remotely in their interest and never has been, the consecutive extensions have not affected the transition end date. Even now they've still got a minimum 3 years of our contributions during which they can make changes in their rules for every trade sector to our further disadvantage.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Good question, maybe it's one of the things that got missed in the copying and pasting Mays deal when rushing for this deal. That's why it needs proper time and scrutiny. As I understand the EU haven't started yet while waiting to see what we do.

Can we stop this charade of saying "proper time and scrutiny" when what is actually meant is "pick holes and find justifications to reject it".

And people wonder why Boris was so keen to compress the timescales? Is it not obvious? He's treading a tightrope delicately balanced at keeping just enough remainers and just enough leavers on side. Deviation either way and any hope of a majority is lost.

"proper time and scrutiny" just means "we don't like it and will reject it, but don't want to lose votes by being seen to be obstructive".

 

[Dubai Blue]

Never mind mate.
Very important this Queen's speech don't you know.
Parliament was proroged for five weeks to prepare for it and Liz had to get all dressed up to read it out.
Can't wait.

They'll be debating it today and tomorrow. Mogg announced it would be brought forward after the votes last night.

 

[BobKowalski]

Not remotely in their interest and never has been, the consecutive extensions have not affected the transition end date. Even now they've still got a minimum 3 years of our contributions during which they can make changes in their rules for every trade sector to our further disadvantage.

Keep us on the hook and negotiating on several fronts. Future trade deal, transition extension, UK contributions for extension, new EU rules to implement, new arrangements for NI to negotiate, implement and administer, Unionist politics in NI to contend with, rolling over EU trade deals seamlessly, do we build new customs and ports infrastructure and infrastructure around ports (roads, holding areas etc) well depends on the future trade deal so not sure worth spending the money, but next extension date is now looming we have to get this done quick, concede or further extension period? Here is £15 billion. Another year please.

 

[blueparrot]

Can we stop this charade of saying "proper time and scrutiny" when what is actually meant is "pick holes and find justifications to reject it".

And people wonder why Boris was so keen to compress the timescales? Is it not obvious? He's treading a tightrope delicately balanced at keeping just enough remainers and just enough leavers on side. Deviation either way and any hope of a majority is lost.

"proper time and scrutiny" just means "we don't like it and will reject it, but don't want to lose votes by being seen to be obstructive".

No because the ones that passed it last night were the ones that defeated the timescale and are the ones that need to be won over to win any vote.

 

[Vic]

General Election is inevitable, let’s get it done, BJ will piss it, I’m no fan but the Tories will select their candidates based on their support for Brexit. Not sure if JC had the same backing, however it will put this boring, expensive episode to bed.

The uncertainty has already cost industry in the UK, I’m talking through my pocket, it’s not fortunes but to my small business it’s hit me enough to make a dent. Others will be suffering much more, sick to death of it.

Reject sitting good constituency MPs you lose their personal vote.

This wouldn't end uncertainty.

 

[meltonblue]

Can we stop this charade of saying "proper time and scrutiny" when what is actually meant is "pick holes and find justifications to reject it".

And people wonder why Boris was so keen to compress the timescales? Is it not obvious? He's treading a tightrope delicately balanced at keeping just enough remainers and just enough leavers on side. Deviation either way and any hope of a majority is lost.

"proper time and scrutiny" just means "we don't like it and will reject it, but don't want to lose votes by being seen to be obstructive".

For most it does, not all though. That’s why some of the independent tories voted for the second reading but against the bill and why Clarke suggested what he did straight after the second vote.

I also think there were enough of the labour MPs that would have voted for both after a couple of amendments too.