Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[sadj]

2 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Nope and nope.

Well i hope they were good. That to me is wrong. Fine when its something not so important or its something clear cut but something life altering with sever consequences they should be allowed to vote unless DUP or Tory ?

[Notts1874]

3 minutes ago, sadj said:

Well i hope they were good. That to me is wrong. Fine when its something not so important or its something clear cut but something life altering with sever consequences they should be allowed to vote unless DUP or Tory ?

Just google Andrew Griffiths and you will find all you need about the texts.

 

He was miraculously unsuspended just before the first vote in all this nonsense.

[Victorian]

DUP making noises about having a big say in the future deal negotiations = 1 of 2 versions of the same thing.

 

1.    DUP proactively hawking their bloc vote to May at the price of gaining a bigger chip in the game.

 

2.    May has already offered to buy their bloc vote at that price,    but cannot afford for it to be known.    Must be packaged as DUP offering it.

[Victorian]

Yvette Cooper has been saying that it is the view of the ECJ advocate general that UK does not need to take part in Euro elections.

 

Meanwhile... David Lidington is still using Euro elections problem as an excuse why we shouldn't have a longer extension.    

 

 

[redjambo]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Yvette Cooper has been saying that it is the view of the ECJ advocate general that UK does not need to take part in Euro elections.

 

Meanwhile... David Lidington is still using Euro elections problem as an excuse why we shouldn't have a longer extension.    

 

 

I don't see the harm in Euro elections. Ok, so there's the financial aspect of organising them, but as long as we're still a part of the EU, which we would be with an extension, they should be held.

[...a bit disco]

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I don't see the harm in Euro elections. Ok, so there's the financial aspect of organising them, but as long as we're still a part of the EU, which we would be with an extension, they should be held.

 

But others can see the harm in Yvette Cooper being aware of this information and the deputy PM seemingly being oblivious to it.     

[Costanza]

Since the referendum which was advisory and where Electoral Law was broken, we've had a General Election during a fixed term parliament, a Tory Leadership election and the same Withdrawal Bill brought back to Parliament (a Sovereign Parliament) and rejected twice. It's likely to come back at least once more.

 

To some, another referendum where the public would clearly be more informed than they were in 2016 from business, trade, health services, economists and yes, experts rather than the politicians who lied on either side (Leavers on how easy a deal would be and the economic benefits of Brexit, Remainers on the immediate post referendum shock) would be anti democratic. For what it's worth, I don't think another referendum will happen but just for reference, here are a few choice quotes:

 

David Davis: "If a democracy can't change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy".

 

Nigel Farage: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way".

 

Jacob Rees Mogg: "We could have two referendums. As it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed".

 

Boris Johnson: "Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a titanic success of it".

[Costanza]

17 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Yvette Cooper has been saying that it is the view of the ECJ advocate general that UK does not need to take part in Euro elections.

 

Meanwhile... David Lidington is still using Euro elections problem as an excuse why we shouldn't have a longer extension.    

 

 

Interesting,  I thought we would have to take part as it would present a legal minefield. 

This is just a pundits view of course 

 

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/02/21/the-real-brexit-cliff-edge-is-not-on-march-29th-it-s-july-1s

 

[Cade]

So a nation about to attempt to go 100% solo in a globalised marketplace and in need of making hundreds of new treaties with every nation on earth is starting off by threatening to rip up a binding treaty just because it doesn't like it?

 

Has anybody thought this through?

 

Why would anybody deal with such a nation? And even if they did, what terms do you think any deals will be made on?

[sadj]

19 minutes ago, ...a bit disco said:

Thank you Disco ??

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

Thank you Disco ??

The other girl hasn't officially gone public and wasn't named in the paper. She has though told the whole of Burton its her.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

As are our EU commisioners as it is our Govt that appoints them.  The council members are our respective cabinet ministers.  How are they not accountable to Parliament?

 

The whole "taking back control" is a complete hoax.  We are part of a Union, these are the rules of the game, so we play.

 

But for the last 40 years we have been fed a diet of lies regards EU power/control at the expense of the UK.  The UK has happily signed up to these things.

 

So if the UK wants to leave the EU, then fair enough, but to make it out as if we are somehow subjegated by EU institutions is bollocks because we are part of that as it is!

 

As an aside, a wee graphic on the legislative process in the EU

 

Your selective quote omits my view that I do not buy the Leavers argument about "taking back control".

And my point was of course, (in response to a comment about the weakness of the EU Parliament) about the accountability of the EU Commission and Council of Ministers to the EU Parliament.

That the  UK Commissioner (a minority of one in the Commssion) is appointed by the UK Government (and therefore rather remotely accountable to the UK Parliament) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Thanks for your diagram. Perhaps you could expand my education further by outlining the EU Parliament's powers to initiate and pass legislation on its own. And its powers to throw out the Commisioners and Council of Ministers. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Francis Albert

[sadj]

1 minute ago, Notts1874 said:

The other girl hasn't officially gone public and wasn't named in the paper. She has though told the whole of Burton its her.

 

 

I’m sure she is a lovely lady. She must be very popular now. ? 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, sadj said:

I’m sure she is a lovely lady. She must be very popular now. ? 

I know her and before you ask no I haven't ???

[Victorian]

Rather silly looking backbench Labour MPs have got the daggers out for the front bench for not backing the peoples' vote amendment.... even though the official peoples' vote campaign are not backing the peoples' vote amendment.

 

YOU ARE NOT HELPING dumbdumbs.

[Cade]

[sadj]

22 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

I know her and before you ask no I haven't ???

All id of asked is know her personally or just from the game? ?

[Boris]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Your selective quote omits my view that I do not buy the Leavers argument about "taking back control".

And my point was of course, (in response to a comment about the weakness of the EU Parliament) about the accountability of the EU Commission and Council of Ministers to the EU Parliament.

That the  UK Commissioner (a minority of one in the Commssion) is appointed by the UK Government (and therefore rather remotely accountable to the UK Parliament) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Thanks for your diagram. Perhaps you could expand my education further by outlining the EU Parliament's powers to initiate and pass legislation on its own. And its powers to throw out the Commisioners and Council of Ministers. 

 

The EU Parliament cannot, as far as I am aware initiate legislation.  Only the European Commission can do this.  The EU parliament debates, amends, negotiates, ratifies (as per the previous diagram).

 

I doubt a Council Minster could be "thrown out", given they are elected representatives of the member states government?

 

 

 

 

[Notts1874]

Trump saying May should have listened to his advice ????

[SwindonJambo]

11 minutes ago, sadj said:

All id of asked is know her personally or just from the game? ?

Well this thread's taken quite a twist!

[sadj]

3 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

Well this thread's taken quite a twist!

A little light in a deep well of depressing darkness and fear ?

[The Mighty Thor]

41 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Trump saying May should have listened to his advice ????

A ringing endorsement 

[Notts1874]

5 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

A ringing endorsement 

Remember when the Sun did that interview where he said this previously and he called it fake news.....

Edited March 14, 2019 by Notts1874

[Notts1874]

Huge unexploded WW2 bomb found at Manston Airport.

[Stu40]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

So a nation about to attempt to go 100% solo in a globalised marketplace and in need of making hundreds of new treaties with every nation on earth is starting off by threatening to rip up a binding treaty just because it doesn't like it?

 

Has anybody thought this through?

 

Why would anybody deal with such a nation? And even if they did, what terms do you think any deals will be made on?

It's absolutely barking.

some one on the news  yesterday said " its like asking if we can play them at football, and then asking if we can use our hands as well "

[SE16 3LN]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

So a nation about to attempt to go 100% solo in a globalised marketplace and in need of making hundreds of new treaties with every nation on earth is starting off by threatening to rip up a binding treaty just because it doesn't like it?

 

Has anybody thought this through?

 

Why would anybody deal with such a nation? And even if they did, what terms do you think any deals will be made on?

I know what you mean, but that's not how Capitalism works.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

So a nation about to attempt to go 100% solo in a globalised marketplace and in need of making hundreds of new treaties with every nation on earth is starting off by threatening to rip up a binding treaty just because it doesn't like it?

 

Has anybody thought this through?

 

Why would anybody deal with such a nation? And even if they did, what terms do you think any deals will be made on?

What and where is the requirement for a treaty to trade? As far as I know there is no treaty between the EU or UK with the US on trade (the current talks on an EU/US trade deal are stalled by the EU 's "red line" that agriculture cannot be included because of one of the EU's fundamental red lines - EU's inefficient farmers must be protected from from free trade competition) . Under what treaty do we currently trade with the US, our single largest trading partner?

 

If  hundreds of new treaties are required for any trade with anyone post-Brexit I'd have thought Project Fear might  have made (even) more play of the mass starvation and blackouts that we would face in a few weeks.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

2nd referendum motion squashed by 249 majority.

Many abstentions as even though MPs think it's the right move, the timing was wrong.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Cade said:

2nd referendum motion squashed by 249 majority.

Many abstentions as even though MPs think it's the right move, the timing was wrong.

 

Would have been defeated even if every Labour MP had voted for it. 

[SwindonJambo]

2 hours ago, sadj said:

A little light in a deep well of depressing darkness and fear ?

And we don't half need it, whatever side of the debate we're on. This whole thing is a clusterf**k of epic proportions. The political process at its very worst. Still infinitely better than a dictatorship I suppose.

[Cade]

Parliament fails to take over control of Brexit from the Government by two votes.

 

I can only assume that Kate Hoey was one of those two

[Mikey1874]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Parliament fails to take over control of Brexit from the Government by two votes.

 

I can only assume that Kate Hoey was one of those two

 

1 of at least 5

 

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Don Dan]

RUth Smeeth resigns from Labour front bench for voting against Second Referendum rather than abstaining. 

Not a Jeremy Corbyn fan it seems.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Notts1874 said:

Trump saying May should have listened to his advice ????

[sadj]

4 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

RUth Smeeth resigns from Labour front bench for voting against Second Referendum rather than abstaining. 

Not a Jeremy Corbyn fan it seems.

 

Seems the most divisive leader they have had. The pro Corbyn’s bully and deny everything that is negative in the party. The anti Corbyn’s bully and promote everything negative in the party. The recent bullying on twitter by our mini celeb twitterer a prime example of the pathetic nature of both sides. Its a time when we should all be trying to unite and fight to try and resolve this before its too late and Labour are failing as badly at that as the Conservatives are at leading us through it. The DUP are the party in power and its vile

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What a perfect example of the fraud/charlatan Corbyn is

[Mikey1874]

Better day for the government.

 

Next week is the problem though. 

[Victorian]

So parliament chooses not to vote for the opportunity to explore other options.

 

WTF must the EU be thinking about that?     In the middle of a quagmire of shit and somebody tries to initiate a way forward.    House doesn't want to.

 

The EU must be wondering if we're taking the piss.

[Cade]

Extension to Article 50 motion passes by a majority of 210.

 

We'd better have something solid to give the EU as they won't allow an extension just to kick the can down the road another few months

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

So parliament chooses not to vote for the opportunity to explore other options.

 

WTF must the EU be thinking about that?     In the middle of a quagmire of shit and somebody tries to initiate a way forward.    House doesn't want to.

 

The EU must be wondering if we're taking the piss.

 

Government said today they will do that in next 2 weeks.  

 

Said the Benn amendment was unnecessary. 

 

But we'll see. 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Cade said:

Extension to Article 50 motion passes by a majority of 210.

 

We'd better have something solid to give the EU as they won't allow an extension just to kick the can down the road another few months

 

It's already laid out.

 

1.  May's deal vote.

2.  If it wins it's a short technical delay.

3.  If it fails it's a long delay.

 

Short delay for anything other than May's successful deal cannot now happen.   Wont be requested.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Government said today they will do that in next 2 weeks.  

 

Said the Benn amendment was unnecessary. 

 

But we'll see. 

 

Only to retain total control.    The amendment was necessary because May's alternative options = May's current deal 4.0 after 3.0 fails.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Corbyn, what an absolute disgraceful excuse for the leader of the opposition.

 

Him and his party abstain en-mass from voting for an amendment in support of a second referendum, then later during a 'point of order' bangs on about how the Labour party support a second referendum. 

 

No wonder the worst Prime Minister in living memory get's such a free ride, because she is faced across the despatch box by the worst leader of the opposition in living memory, and little wonder that Westminster is in such a sorry state with these two clowns in charge.

 

Edit - My living memory.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Cade]

11 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It's already laid out.

 

1.  May's deal vote.

2.  If it wins it's a short technical delay.

3.  If it fails it's a long delay.

 

Short delay for anything other than May's successful deal cannot now happen.   Wont be requested.

Yes, that was what Westminster just voted for.

 

The EU has to agree to that.

[Adam Murray]

Do all other EU nations have to be unanimous in their vote to allow an extension?

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Corbyn, what an absolute disgraceful excuse for the leader of the opposition.

 

Him and his party abstain en-mass from voting for an amendment in support of a second referendum, then later during a 'point of order' bangs on about how the Labour party support a second referendum. 

 

No wonder the worst Prime Minister in living memory get's such a free ride, because she is faced across the despatch box by the worst leader of the opposition in living memory, and little wonder that Westminster is in such a sorry state with these two clowns in charge.

 

Sorry this is rubbish. 

 

The official peoples' vote campaign also did not support that amendment.    For exactly the same reason.     The official campaign say it is best left to another opportunity.

 

Today was about getting the agreement to delay and trying to allow for parliament to offer alternative options (narrowly failed).

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

Sorry this is rubbish. 

 

The official peoples' vote campaign also did not support that amendment.    For exactly the same reason.     The official campaign say it is best left to another opportunity.

 

Today was about getting the agreement to delay and trying to allow for parliament to offer alternative options (narrowly failed).

 

Assuming there is another opportunity, that is.

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, Adam Murray said:

Do all other EU nations have to be unanimous in their vote to allow an extension?

 

Yes

 

Though they will be under orders to agree it.

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, Cade said:

Yes, that was what Westminster just voted for.

 

The EU has to agree to that.

 

They don't have to agree at all but certainly will if May's deal carries.    The longer delay is much more uncertain.     It will be pied unless it comes with a real,  honest plan to proceed.