Up to 15 British ministers may vote to stop UK from leaving EU on March 29: Bloomberg

[Grouse]

Brexit is getting complex and interesting now.

 

Several amendments will be debated this week

 

1) Corbyn - support soft Brexit with SM and CU or go to the people

 

2) Yvette Cooper/Oliver Letwin. If no deal agreed by 13 May, parliament takes control and implements A50 extension of indeterminate length

 

3) Kyle. Go with May's deal but follow with ratification by referendum. May's deal or remain

 

4) A N other Tory. Fixed 2 month extension

 

5) EU suggestion. Delay until 2021 to get new trade deal in place and thus avoid the backstop.

 

Interesting times. Naturally, MPs don't want Brexit (apart from the money grubbing ERG bastards) but they don't want to be blamed for doing the right thing!

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

Yes, but May's deal is so crappy neither side likes it - it's the worst of both worlds 

 

Maybe Brexit is dying it's natural death?

 

neither side? you mean Brexiteers and remainers?

you forget the EU side

I doubt very much that the EU side is pleased with their achievements.

 

Pressing on with a deal that large portions of the UK population is violently opposed to

large portions of HoC likewise

large portions of the NIers likewise

 

Barnier and his negotiators can hardly be proud of this,

they are probably somewhat pissed off, would be my guess

 

all parties dragged into the dungeons,

now, not able to climb up and take a fresh look at matters -  prestige ain't no good pal in multilateral talks

 

(when the time comes to dish out blame, I have no doubt what so ever re who is the main culprit in UK)

(highlighting mistakes is important not in order to embarrass players but in order to avoid repeats)

 

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

The situation will have moved on to Stay Vs No Deal, assuming that May cannot secure an agreement through Parliament, which she still might. Corbyn wants to disrupt that, ie a Soft Brexit with the offer of another referendum. 

The latest Labour position is that, assuming May's revised deal doesn't go through (very unlikely) they will try to re-introduce the deal that they suggested a couple of weeks ago, basically a no Brexit, Brexit. If that doesn't get through Parliament (a certainty) they will then move to have a no deal Brexit taken off the table (has passed once, certain to pass again). They would then propose a second referendum based on May's deal vs. remain.

 

If May's deal is fully explained to the British public, I would expect remain to win the day.

[melvinmelvin]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Brexit is getting complex and interesting now.

 

Several amendments will be debated this week

 

1) Corbyn - support soft Brexit with SM and CU or go to the people

 

2) Yvette Cooper/Oliver Letwin. If no deal agreed by 13 May, parliament takes control and implements A50 extension of indeterminate length

 

3) Kyle. Go with May's deal but follow with ratification by referendum. May's deal or remain

 

4) A N other Tory. Fixed 2 month extension

 

5) EU suggestion. Delay until 2021 to get new trade deal in place and thus avoid the backstop.

 

Interesting times. Naturally, MPs don't want Brexit (apart from the money grubbing ERG bastards) but they don't want to be blamed for doing the right thing!

 

2) is that 13 May or 13 March?

 

3) ratification by referendum, what is that?

    parliament is the body that ratifies multilateral deals, not advisory referenda or the people

    simpler stuff can likely be ratified by PM/Cabinet.

 

5) look at the results of the talks that have taken place over the past 2.5 years

    is there any sound reason at all to think that prolongation of A50 for a year or two

    will result in meaningful - productive - mutual beneficial negotiations

 

 

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

2) is that 13 May or 13 March?

 

3) ratification by referendum, what is that?

    parliament is the body that ratifies multilateral deals, not advisory referenda or the people

    simpler stuff can likely be ratified by PM/Cabinet.

 

5) look at the results of the talks that have taken place over the past 2.5 years

    is there any sound reason at all to think that prolongation of A50 for a year or two

    will result in meaningful - productive - mutual beneficial negotiations

 

 

Sorry,March

 

3) parliament passes May's deal then has that decision ratified by referendum. Normal policy.

 

5) We would have two years to flesh out a trade deal such that the Backstop would be redundant

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

5) look at the results of the talks that have taken place over the past 2.5 years

    is there any sound reason at all to think that prolongation of A50 for a year or two

    will result in meaningful - productive - mutual beneficial negotiations

The biggest problem for a long term delay is that the time span has already created uncertainty in the markets and some industries, who are already making plans to pull out of the UK. Also would create a great deal of frustration amongst the public, who unanimously, remain or leave, just want it sorting out.

 

Also, the EU would want specific reasons for granting the delay, not just "let's have a couple more years of pointless/meaningless negotiations". Much more likely to grant the delay for a second referendum/general election.

[SheungWan]

32 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The latest Labour position is that, assuming May's revised deal doesn't go through (very unlikely) they will try to re-introduce the deal that they suggested a couple of weeks ago, basically a no Brexit, Brexit. If that doesn't get through Parliament (a certainty) they will then move to have a no deal Brexit taken off the table (has passed once, certain to pass again). They would then propose a second referendum based on May's deal vs. remain.

If May's deal is fully explained to the British public, I would expect remain to win the day.

Unless Article 50 is withdrawn I cannot see how no-deal can be taken off the table other than by something else being passed prior.

[SheungWan]

27 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The biggest problem for a long term delay is that the time span has already created uncertainty in the markets and some industries, who are already making plans to pull out of the UK. Also would create a great deal of frustration amongst the public, who unanimously, remain or leave, just want it sorting out.

Also, the EU would want specific reasons for granting the delay, not just "let's have a couple more years of pointless/meaningless negotiations". Much more likely to grant the delay for a second referendum/general election.

Kicking the can down the road is always an option if all else fails.

[SheungWan]

36 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry,March

 

3) parliament passes May's deal then has that decision ratified by referendum. Normal policy.

 

5) We would have two years to flesh out a trade deal such that the Backstop would be redundant

Backstop is not essentially about trade, it is about people and the border.

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Kicking the can down the road is always an option if all else fails.

I don't think that it's an option from the EU's POV.

 

They have always held all the cards, they still do, except for the UK's ability to withdraw From Article 50, unilaterally. 

[SheungWan]

11 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Many were enslaved, treated worse than soi dogs, and never made it home, and many of those that made it home bore the psychological damage. Would have been better to fight them to the death. No shame in that.

I can't believe I am reading this neo-Kamikaze nonsense, but will leave further discussion for another thread on another day.

[evadgib]

The latest Moggcast:

 

[SheungWan]

Just now, Spidey said:

I don't think that it's an option from the EU's POV.

They have always held all the cards, they still do, except for the UK's ability to withdraw From Article 50, unilaterally. 

Last minute if it was delay vs no-deal.

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Backstop is not essentially about trade, it is about people and the border.

Depends on your POV. From the EU's POV, it's all about trade. No border, remain in the CU. EU gives the orders, we just bleat and obey.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Depends on your POV. From the EU's POV, it's all about trade. No border, remain in the CU. EU gives the orders, we just bleat and obey.

No. The backstop is not all about trade. Ask Ireland.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

No. The backstop is not all about trade. Ask Ireland.

Ask Barnier and Tusk.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Brexit is getting complex and interesting now.

 

Several amendments will be debated this week

 

1) Corbyn - support soft Brexit with SM and CU or go to the people

 

2) Yvette Cooper/Oliver Letwin. If no deal agreed by 13 May, parliament takes control and implements A50 extension of indeterminate length

 

3) Kyle. Go with May's deal but follow with ratification by referendum. May's deal or remain

 

4) A N other Tory. Fixed 2 month extension

 

5) EU suggestion. Delay until 2021 to get new trade deal in place and thus avoid the backstop.

 

Interesting times. Naturally, MPs don't want Brexit (apart from the money grubbing ERG bastards) but they don't want to be blamed for doing the right thing!

The latest twist in the story is more about the Labour Party. They may have finally worked out that if Hard Brexit prevails, some of that dog dirt would be all over Corbyn and done him no good at a General Election whenever that took place. And the Independents would be there to jog people's memories.

[SheungWan]

8 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

No. The backstop is not all about trade. Ask Ireland.

 

6 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Ask Barnier and Tusk.

Who are standing by Ireland.

[melvinmelvin]

36 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Sorry,March

 

3) parliament passes May's deal then has that decision ratified by referendum. Normal policy.

 

5) We would have two years to flesh out a trade deal such that the Backstop would be redundant

yes you would have two years or so to sort out the next deal (not only trade, also disentanglement)

considering the experience and result from the past 2.5 years of talks you would have to be

pretty optimistic to think the next project will be mutually beneficial and OK.

but of course, one should always go to

such with an open optimistic mind,

one plan for success

 

re ratification

here I do disagree with you, this is abuse of the English language

ratification is the legal act of giving the nod of agreement to a multilateral deal

giving the nod (by parliament) to the old or a new may-deal does not mean that it

enters into force, it means that the UK has legally bound itself to follow the deal

whenever it enters into force

date of entering into force is normally decided between the signatories

 

now,

the UK electorate has no legal standing and no legal power, they just cannot ratify deals

if you absolutely want the electorate involved,

parliament arranges a legally binding referendum, empowering the electorate to decide

ratify or not ratify, but the ratification must be done by parliament.

 

decision by parliament and followed by what you refer to as ratification through referendum,

it is not all common practice in the UK. Referenda are very few and far between in the UK, ratification of multilateral deals or changes to multilateral deals takes place frequently, not daily or weekly - but several times a year.

 

 

[SheungWan]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes you would have two years or so to sort out the next deal (not only trade, also disentanglement)

considering the experience and result from the past 2.5 years of talks you would have to be

pretty optimistic to think the next project will be mutually beneficial and OK.

but of course, one should always go to

such with an open optimistic mind,

one plan for success

re ratification

here I do disagree with you, this is abuse of the English language

ratification is the legal act of giving the nod of agreement to a multilateral deal

giving the nod (by parliament) to the old or a new may-deal does not mean that it

enters into force, it means that the UK has legally bound itself to follow the deal

whenever it enters into force

date of entering into force is normally decided between the signatories

now,

the UK electorate has no legal standing and no legal power, they just cannot ratify deals

if you absolutely want the electorate involved,

parliament arranges a legally binding referendum, empowering the electorate to decide

ratify or not ratify, but the ratification must be done by parliament.

decision by parliament and followed by what you refer to as ratification through referendum,

it is not all common practice in the UK. Referenda are very few and far between in the UK, ratification of multilateral deals or changes to multilateral deals takes place frequently, not daily or weekly - but several times a year.

I tend to agree, but hey-ho.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The latest twist in the story is more about the Labour Party. They may have finally worked out that if Hard Brexit prevails, some of that dog dirt would be all over Corbyn and done him no good at a General Election whenever that took place. And the Independents would be there to jog people's memories.

I think that the dog dirt would hit the fan and spray all over everyone. A no-no from all sides. Will be taken off the table. Has already passed parliament once. Corbyn would be the least affected (but not unaffected), has actively campaigned against it for a while now.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

Apparently Labour is now going to support may's deal - I'm not sure how they square this up with their previous opposition to it 

they figure people's memories are as short as their own

[SheungWan]

It would appear from the latest headline from the FT, that Hard Brexit comes off the table with a delay to the deadline and that this is being considered, subject to a deal-deal not passing prior.

[Grouse]

40 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Backstop is not essentially about trade, it is about people and the border.

Of course it isn't. But a CU would obviate the need for a backstop! ????. Do I have to spell out every damn thing??

[tomacht8]

The EU should not agree to a prolongation of the Brexit coma, but demand a clear decision:

1. First have a vote in parliament if the British accept the deal already signed by May.

2. If Not, have a vote in parliament if the UK decide for the Chaos Brexit.

3. If Not, then withdraw article 50.

And to resubmit article 50 only if the UK goverment and the UK parliament have a Brexit idea that is capable of majority, or if a second referendum demands Brexit again.

[Grouse]

29 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The latest twist in the story is more about the Labour Party. They may have finally worked out that if Hard Brexit prevails, some of that dog dirt would be all over Corbyn and done him no good at a General Election whenever that took place. And the Independents would be there to jog people's memories.

Maybe you should volunteer as an advisor on the bleedin' obvious?

[SheungWan]

23 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Maybe you should volunteer as an advisor on the bleedin' obvious?

I assume you mean bleedin' obvious to those with a 'respectable' degree.

[Grouse]

28 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes you would have two years or so to sort out the next deal (not only trade, also disentanglement)

considering the experience and result from the past 2.5 years of talks you would have to be

pretty optimistic to think the next project will be mutually beneficial and OK.

but of course, one should always go to

such with an open optimistic mind,

one plan for success

 

re ratification

here I do disagree with you, this is abuse of the English language

ratification is the legal act of giving the nod of agreement to a multilateral deal

giving the nod (by parliament) to the old or a new may-deal does not mean that it

enters into force, it means that the UK has legally bound itself to follow the deal

whenever it enters into force

date of entering into force is normally decided between the signatories

 

now,

the UK electorate has no legal standing and no legal power, they just cannot ratify deals

if you absolutely want the electorate involved,

parliament arranges a legally binding referendum, empowering the electorate to decide

ratify or not ratify, but the ratification must be done by parliament.

 

decision by parliament and followed by what you refer to as ratification through referendum,

it is not all common practice in the UK. Referenda are very few and far between in the UK, ratification of multilateral deals or changes to multilateral deals takes place frequently, not daily or weekly - but several times a year.

 

 

In the rare case of a binding referendum in the U.K. It is invariably to ratify a decision already taken by parliament. This is the correct use of a referendum. In this case, it is highly likely that a parliamentary vote in favour on May's deal would be cancelled as a result of a referendum and we would then remain.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Off topic but my understanding was they left it too late to get the women and kids off to Australia. Plus our tactics to stop the Japanese moving down Malaya were piss poor and made worse because of inadequate air power due to demands from other theatres.

You are factually correct. The 'tactical retreat' was for my fellow service personnel on here who will understand.

[samran]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Off topic but my understanding was they left it too late to get the women and kids off to Australia. Plus our tactics to stop the Japanese moving down Malaya were piss poor and made worse because of inadequate air power due to demands from other theatres.

An event that Australia remembers very well and another of a long line of examples of Britain turning its back on the commonwealth. Many quarters in Australian public life who have long memories have not forgiven Britain, particularly on the Labor side of the aisle, and no doubt it is they who will be negotiating with you come brexit with some relish.