Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:12 pm

I think it all pretty much rules out a vote this week though, which means May will have to look for long extension from the EU on Thursday. Nine months is being mentioned as potentially on offer, I wonder what conditions will be attached to it?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:14 pm

AndyClaret wrote:A victory for Eurosceptics, the government have to get substantial changes to bring another vote, Good question by Mark Francois, "if the government can't bring MV3 without substantial changes, then can cooper/boles/ second ref bring back the same having already been rejected" Bercow dodged it.

I would guess that the rules apply to motions rather than amendments. So if the motion is substantially different then even if the same amendments are attached to it it remains substantially different.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:20 pm

martin_p wrote:I think it all pretty much rules out a vote this week though, which means May will have to look for long extension from the EU on Thursday. Nine months is being mentioned as potentially on offer, I wonder what conditions will be attached to it?

I'm seeing on Twitter that the EU want "a plan" before they grant a long extension, without a vote, we have no plan, so no extension, chances of no deal just gone up.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:22 pm

Bercow now clarifying that the motion would have to be substantially different and that effectively any substantial changes would have to be agreed by the EU, effectively ruling out offering reassurances to the DUP and different legal interpretations.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:23 pm

martin_p wrote:I would guess that the rules apply to motions rather than amendments. So if the motion is substantially different then even if the same amendments are attached to it it remains substantially different.

Having looked it up it does apply to amendments, so scratch that!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:24 pm

Not really, unless you want to believe 100% that the MPs when faced with revoking article 50 or leaving with "No Deal" will all go "oh well, ******* the country it is then".

Both sides of the debate will have to rethink how they approach their respective problems, but the sight of the ERG praising the Speaker for basically doing his job (after months of slagging him off) just sums that lot up.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:25 pm

AndyClaret wrote:I'm seeing on Twitter that the EU want "a plan" before they grant a long extension, without a vote, we have no plan, so no extension, chances of no deal just gone up.

Little to no chance that they won't grant an extension, thye don't want no deal either. The only stumbling block will be if they add lots of conditions that aren't palatable to parliamnet and they vote it down. But given parliament don't want no deal the conditions would have to be pretty bad for that to happen.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Damo wrote:I gave you evidence. You said it didnt prove anything. Yet it backed up exactly what I said.

Wrong. Your “evidence” proved that some remainers have called some brexiters nazis. That’s not disputed.

However, the claim that you were trying (and failing) to support was

Damo wrote:After spending 2 years calling everyone who voted to leave a Nazi. It seems remainers are really offended by the term today.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Example

Kyle amendment (which would lead to a 2nd ref) v.different to the PV amendment put forward last week.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 pm

Peter Foster of the DT

"Logically.

The Withdrawal Agreement is closed.

The Political declaration is not.

To pass Bercow tests, we therefore need to change PD (CU, Norway) and test majority.

The EU is clear it's happy to expand PD; fair to presume they will accommodate?"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:31 pm

if anyone else is still following all this, then fair play.

I'm lost.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:32 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:if anyone else is still following all this, then fair play.

I'm lost.

That’s not surprising!

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:32 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Example

Kyle amendment (which would lead to a 2nd ref) v.different to the PV amendment put forward last week.

It seems like any amendment will have to be different as Kate Hoey just asked about Peoples vote already being voted on twice before, Bercow said nobody complained before, so seems like a line in the sand drawn from now.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:33 pm

Who thinks that May will pull article 50 at the last minute?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Peter Foster of the DT

"Logically.

The Withdrawal Agreement is closed.

The Political declaration is not.

To pass Bercow tests, we therefore need to change PD (CU, Norway) and test majority.

The EU is clear it's happy to expand PD; fair to presume they will accommodate?"

In his answer to Hilary Benn, he said the withdrawal agreement has to be changed.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:35 pm

Consensus seems to be sure the PD can be changed and will do, but who knows?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:38 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Consensus seems to be sure the PD can be changed and will do, but who knows?

PD not legally binding.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:40 pm

Yes, which is why it could be changed, as the withdrawal agreement can't be, there has to be a compromise somewhere.

Still trying to follow what is going on and when and where!

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:42 pm

I think Bercow is right to stop the same motion coming back.

There thus appear to be 2 options:

1. Tinker with the backstop yet further OR make the PD more specific regarding a free trade arrangement (to please Tories)
2. Make the PD more specific regarding a Customs Union (to please Labour)

The former would get the DUP and ERG on side and the motion through. The latter would get Labour to vote for it and get the motion through, but it would end the Conservative party as a force in UK politics (it would splinter and we would have permanent hung parliaments).

Normally I would predict option 1 because May has to look after her own party, plus it is closer to what voter's chose (in the referendum and in both manifestos in 2017). Normal rules seem to be off though, so who the heck knows?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:43 pm

Sure there is way to do it to avoid doing either of those (the context and the words are crucial) to be honest.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:46 pm

Bercow confirms the house could have a vote to overturn his ruling, this gets sillier and sillier !

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:53 pm

Going to give it about an hour and then try to work out what all this means.

Jeez, fair play to Bercow but it complicates stuff a lot.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:57 pm

Greenmile wrote:Wrong. Your “evidence” proved that some remainers have called some brexiters nazis. That’s not disputed.

However, the claim that you were trying (and failing) to support was

Well I was never going to have time to go through 16 million peoples timelines and quote them individually was I?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:03 pm

Damo wrote:Well I was never going to have time to go through 16 million peoples timelines and quote them individually was I?

Just go through mine, that’ll prove you wrong.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Just go through mine, that’ll prove you wrong.

Ok pal. What's your name on Twitter?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:12 pm

MartinP@allbrexiteersarenazis I think

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:22 pm

It's a bit childish but I am amused by the Led by Donkeys billboards during the "Brexit march"

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/11 ... 8811856897" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm

They are doing a superb job of highlighting the choicest quotes from the Brexit bunch.

I think the march is actually a really bad idea for Brexit backers, as everyone is seeing these tweets and statements everytime they seen the march.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:29 pm

Damo wrote:Ok pal. What's your name on Twitter?

Mine will prove you wrong too. @ChaeDoc

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm

Customs union, second referendum and the HOC taking control have already been voted on and lost. Can we assume that these are already ruled out?

Surely there must be a way around this? Can the HOC vote to suspend the rules?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:31 pm

IT has just won twitter I think!

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:47 pm

Johnny B’s decision will be popular with the Brexiters. They’ve been pushing the same message for ages.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:53 pm

Damo wrote:Ok pal. What's your name on Twitter?

Don’t post on Twitter.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:04 pm

Fun fact of the day, John Bercow was a member of the ERG !

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:24 pm

martin_p wrote:This post is a classic of the Brexit genre, full of half truths (and less than half truths) and claims that don't even come close to representing reality.

a) 'MPs couldn't agree on the issue' - not true, as hsitory has shown (and Brexiteers constantly complain about) there is a large cross party majority for staying in the EU. The decision by Cameron to offer a referndum was based on i) he split in the Tory party (although again, Leavers were in the minority) that has plagued them for decades and ii) the fear that the rise of UKIP would cost the Tories a significant number of votes.

b) 'a PM........bending over backwards to appease MPs who lost the vote, and the EU'. Nope, it was the PM trying the appease the ERG that caused her to define a set of red lines that were undeliverable

c) Remainer MPs have done everything in their power to derail it (a good deal). I've yet to see any examples of this.

d) The EU is undemocratic. No, it really isn't.

e) 'Negotiations could only have been carried out fairly is they were conducted by MPs who actually fought for Brexit'. You seem to be forgetting that every MInister for Brexit fought for Brexit.

A I've seen on another post on this thread that MPs did vote on whether to hold a referendum. It wasnt denounced by anybody, because in their arrogance they believed they'd win.

B those red lines are Brexit, without them there is no Brexit, so it cant have been done to appease ERG. If we didn't have those red lines it would be just a watered down remain. I'd add that if those red lines are crossed then the public haven't got what they voted for.

C we've had 2 votes already on TMs crap deal. If they wanted a soft Brexit, they couldn't have a got a better deal if the EU had written it themselves, which they may well have done. So why won't the remainers back it. Because there isn't any deal that would suit them. They want a second referendum whatever the cost to democracy .

D this one is the daftest of all, but I'll explain it again as you obviously ignored previous posts.
Where is the EU manifesto. Where is their plan for the next 5 years. Where is the alternative manifesto, so that people can decide which route they'd prefer to take. There isn't one of course.
So what does Brussels parliament vote on? They vote on proposals. Not proposals that come from MEPs, because they aren't allowed to make proposals. The proposals are written by the European Commissioners. The European Commissioners are Selected, not Elected. They dont have to pass a test on where they see Europe going, they dont have to fight for their seat against alternative candidates, they are just Selected. In my belief on their desire for a United States of Europe, but whether you buy that or not, it still isn't democratic.
So they have their agenda, make their proposals, and MEPs vote on them. BUT if it gets voted down it doesn't matter. They just do what they did with Ireland and Holland over the Lisbon treaty, reword it and get them to vote for the same thing again, and again, until its passed.
The MEPs by the way, who have perks and payments that the HOC couldn't even dream of. Over 10,000 people in Brussels earn more than our PM. That's pay not counting the perks.

There is no way that anybody can call that democracy.
No policy or manifesto, no alternatives, an agenda set by an unelected body. It might as well be Communist Russia.

E the ministers for Brexit have been working with one hand tied behind their back, it's why so many have quit, and why we've had so many in such a short period of time.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:38 pm

Jesus

I'll let Martin reply to you, I frankly can't be arsed arguing with someone who makes stuff up.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:39 pm

Damo wrote:Well I was never going to have time to go through 16 million peoples timelines and quote them individually was I?

With 16m too choose from I’d have thought you could find one which says all brexiters are Nazis. Instead your “evidence” included one tweet (presumably from a remainer) which said, in part “Not every brexiter is a Nazi...”

I appreciate you were in a rush to get back to your pint, but that’s the exact opposite of what you should have been looking for.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:57 pm

It is certainly true that the Commissioners are paid far more than our Prime Minister, all 28 of them.

QUIZ - who can name our Commissioner without googling or similar? I bet not 1% of us.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:12 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Oh, there is absolutely no doubt the speaker is bang on the money here but again, I don't think there won't be a way around this. I mean, there always is when it comes to having an unwritten constitution.

Bercow should not even be in the house he's certainly bought and paid for and as corrupt as it gets but that won't bother the pro EU commies...

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:14 pm

Hmmm...

Third vote on May's deal not allowed by the speaker
May attends European council summit on Thursday
May cannot ask for short technical extension because her deal hasn't been passed
May cannot ask for longer extension because she hasn't got any reason for one
EU have no choice but to confirm that Article 50 cannot be extended
We leave the EU on March 29th on WTO trade terms

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:28 pm

Moving towards staying in the EU thanks to JB, well who would have believed It eh.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:38 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Jesus

I'll let Martin reply to you, I frankly can't be arsed arguing with someone who makes stuff up.

I’d be wasting my time, you can’t argue against a belief system.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:56 pm

martin_p wrote:I’d be wasting my time, you can’t argue against a belief system.

Indeed. When someone has demonstrated to you that they refuse to accept the importance of logic then what logical argument can you make to change their mind?

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:08 pm

In other news Liam Fox has signed a deal with EEA countries Iceland and Norway.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:11 pm

AndyClaret wrote:In other news Liam Fox has signed a deal with EEA countries Iceland and Norway.

Deal? Explain please.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:14 pm

South West Claret. wrote:Deal? Explain please.

Trade deal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:19 pm

The more I read your posts Lancs the more of a coward you look.

You're frightened of Britain being a free sovereign state.
You're frightened of having the responsibility of standing on your own feet.
You're even frightened of leaving my username in your responses in the hope I dont catch on that you are nay saying me behind my back.

I hope it's your wife wearing the trousers in your house, because she had a lot more balls than you do.

Siri, show me a post when people realise they are not getting the Brexit they dreamed of.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Mine will prove you wrong too. @ChaeDoc

Touche

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:21 pm

martin_p wrote:Don’t post on Twitter.

How convenient

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:21 pm

Trade deal.

Yup, good news

If we can put this off for 6-9 months (or longer) , so we complete stuff like this, its all good.

The longer we spend on the preparation, the less damage we will take.