BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

robert88

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Denis Staunton
@denisstaunton
Irish side believes Varadkar/Johnson meeting has produced the basis for renewed negotiations between UK and EU. A tunnel could be in sight.

There has certainly been an upward movement in the exchange rates on the back of this.

And share prices. May take some profits tomorrow. Or I might wait a bit longer.

Lucky I waited!

tailwindhome

It's going to be quite a week for the DUP

Single Sex Marriage
Abortion Decriminalised
Irish Sea Border.

tailwindhome

On first impressions it seems the EU have been able to move as this is now the 'solution' not a 'backstop'

kingstongraham

TailWindHome wrote:

On first impressions it seems the EU have been able to move as this is now the 'solution' not a 'backstop'

They must be confident that the DUP can't just unravel it at the first opportunity then, surely?

rick_chasey

People who know more than me suggesting it’s a worse deal for DUP than May’s deal.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

People who know more than me suggesting it’s a worse deal for DUP than May’s deal.

They can join all the other people wishing they'd voted for that when they had the chance.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

People who know more than me suggesting it’s a worse deal for DUP than May’s deal.

They can join all the other people wishing they'd voted for that when they had the chance.

When does Stephen Kinnock's amendment kick in?

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm surprised by the no assembly one given it doesn't look like it will open soon, and this incentivises one side to never open it. A referedum would, to me, make sense at that point.

It does have the advantage of everyone being able to claim the win.

Looks like a Sinn Fein veto in effect. I struggle to understand the democractic legitimacy of it, and can't see how it works for the DUP.

It's not 100% clear what is actually being proposed - but it looks as if the DUP/Unionist veto would apply from the second vote. They can claim it as a virtual 10 year time limit.

As you say, none of it is clear, but if there is no legitimate consent mechanism, there is a danger someone like Trimble will take it to the courts.

It's so unclear this morning it's not even worth thinking about today.

Here is the text.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... reland.pdf

Following the first vote, if there is a simple majority then it will be reviewed after 4 years, if there is cross party support it will be reviewed after 8 years.

No vote for four years, and then a two year cooling off period.

No idea what happens in the absence of an assembly, but it does say

"For the purposes of paragraph 1, the United Kingdom shall seek democratic consent in Northern Ireland in a manner consistent with the 1998 Agreement."

It also opens up with

"This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people."

So I guess is open to challenge in the courts.

tailwindhome

Kate Ferguson
@kateferguson4
·
2h
CONFIRMED: Labour MPs have been told they are being whipped to back a second referendum on super Saturday

tailwindhome

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

imposter2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

None of it alters Jo Maugham's case either..

bianchimoon

MugenSi wrote:

So ten bigoted unionists from NI are deciding the fate for the entire UK...ridiculous!

were they bigoted unionists when they engaged in the confidence deal with the cons to get Brexit done?

morstar

Pross wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

HaydenM wrote:

Polling is at 50% for Scottish Independence but I can't see it happening fast enough to capitalise on the brexit mess and the peak in support will subside.

...looks at the mess Westminster is in and how long brexit will run and run for and thinks, hmmm...

I wonder how inconsequential the Scottish circle would look on Stevo's favourite EU chart

I thought being a big economy in the EU was a bad thing because you subsidize all the smaller ones?

Scotland may well find out to their cost what lack of subsidy feels like if they get independence. (I'm pretty relaxed about it BTW).

Surely if they get independence and then membership of the EU, they'll get all the EU subsidy they need?

The border arrangements between scotland and england with the eu will be entertaining if england has already left. England can play a role reversal with scotland and the eu.

It would just be a hard border surely? It doesn't have all the historic political issues that created the problems with the Irish border.

Yes, it's just a straightforward one dimensional border. NI is problematic as you are trying to keep alignment with two separate entities with different rules and a whole load of political tension/mistrust. An English - Scottish border is just a border.

TheBigBean

These arrangements will become the settled position in these areas for Northern Ireland. This drives a coach and horses through the professed sanctity of the Belfast agreement.

rjsterry

Designed to fail or will he allow a confirmatory ref to catch Labour out?

He claims to be confident he can get it through the Commons, but that may just be words.

Others pointing out that the LPF provisions being taken out of the WA doesn't mean much as the UK will need to sign up to them as part of an FTA anyway.

A triumph of presentation over content.

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

Let's see what happens on Saturday in Parliament.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

Let's see what happens on Saturday in Parliament.

Given that the government has lost the first amendment to the motion for a Saturday sitting, I'm not sure it's entirely up to them.

pblakeney

I see that he is pictured waving a piece of paper.
May as well be claiming peace in our time...

darkhairedlord

PBlakeney wrote:

I see that he is pictured waving a piece of paper.
May as well be claiming peace in our time...

Thats the Benn act and he's just wiped his arris on it after Junker stated to extension.

Alejandrosdog

hahahaha GO JUNKER

NO Brexit extension


Vote for the deal or vote for no deal he tells the Houses of Parliament

darkhairedlord

Alejandrosdog wrote:

hahahaha GO JUNKER

NO Brexit extension


Vote for the deal or vote for no deal he tells the Houses of Parliament

or revoke

Alejandrosdog

darkhairedlord wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

hahahaha GO JUNKER

NO Brexit extension


Vote for the deal or vote for no deal he tells the Houses of Parliament

or revoke

hmmmm yes, that would be interesting.

its better than peaky blinders

rjsterry

Saw that. Not entirely clear if he's in a position to say that unless he has already spoken to EUCO. Certainly a matter of a couple of days ago the working assumption was that an extension would be offered, so I wonder what brought about the change of heart. A protection against the UK banking concessions then having another go perhaps.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

Saw that. Not entirely clear if he's in a position to say that unless he has already spoken to EUCO. Certainly a matter of a couple of days ago the working assumption was that an extension would be offered, so I wonder what brought about the change of heart. A protection against the UK banking concessions then having another go perhaps.

two deals now agreed between gvmt and Eu, time to do one...

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

Saw that. Not entirely clear if he's in a position to say that unless he has already spoken to EUCO. Certainly a matter of a couple of days ago the working assumption was that an extension would be offered, so I wonder what brought about the change of heart. A protection against the UK banking concessions then having another go perhaps.

I think they had already voted in favour of another extension a week or so ago. Things change, maybe they've had just about as much of this as they can stomach. at some point its going to sink in that the divisions and tribal self interest of the House of Commons will preclude an answer. No doubt Labour announcing prior to seeing the deal that they will vote against it has something to do with it.

Juncker is just nudging the children along. with impeccable timing I might say.

kingstongraham

The MPs in favour of a new referendum have to keep no-deal on the table in order for the EU to agree to their extension. That's how it works, right?

TheBigBean

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm surprised by the no assembly one given it doesn't look like it will open soon, and this incentivises one side to never open it. A referedum would, to me, make sense at that point.

It does have the advantage of everyone being able to claim the win.

Looks like a Sinn Fein veto in effect. I struggle to understand the democractic legitimacy of it, and can't see how it works for the DUP.

It's not 100% clear what is actually being proposed - but it looks as if the DUP/Unionist veto would apply from the second vote. They can claim it as a virtual 10 year time limit.

As you say, none of it is clear, but if there is no legitimate consent mechanism, there is a danger someone like Trimble will take it to the courts.

It's so unclear this morning it's not even worth thinking about today.

Here is the text.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... reland.pdf

Following the first vote, if there is a simple majority then it will be reviewed after 4 years, if there is cross party support it will be reviewed after 8 years.

No vote for four years, and then a two year cooling off period.

No idea what happens in the absence of an assembly, but it does say

"For the purposes of paragraph 1, the United Kingdom shall seek democratic consent in Northern Ireland in a manner consistent with the 1998 Agreement."

It also opens up with

"This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people."

So I guess is open to challenge in the courts.

Update. In the even the assembly isn't sitting here is the alternative process. So no Sinn Fein veto.

Overall, still seems to be a bit lacking upfront, but otherwise seems vaguely fair

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... onsent.pdf

6.The alternative process referred to in paragraph 5 will make provision for democratic consent to be provided by Members of the Legislative Assembly if the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, present and voting, vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the Protocol on Northern Ireland and Ireland in a vote specifically arranged for this purpose. This alternative process will also provide for the United Kingdom Government to be notified of the outcome of the consentprocess.

tailwindhome

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

Let's see what happens on Saturday in Parliament.

He needs all 286 who voted for May deal.

-1 he lost in the bye election
+all 28 Spartans

Plus 7 more from Labour/Libdems

320.

(per John Rentoul)

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

hahahaha GO JUNKER

NO Brexit extension


Vote for the deal or vote for no deal he tells the Houses of Parliament

or revoke

Not sure that has any chance of getting through on the weekend. Has anyone even proposed it?

Juncker's statement will certainly focused the minds in parliament. This Saturday is deal or no deal. Wonder what the likes of Corbyn, Swinson and Sturgeon are going to do?

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

None of this makes the Benn Act go away.

Let's see what happens on Saturday in Parliament.

He needs all 286 who voted for May deal.

-1 he lost in the bye election
+all 28 Spartans

Plus 7 more from Labour/Libdems

320.

(per John Rentoul)

Seen Junckers statement on there being no extension? That changes the game a little.