Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[pauliescouse]

 

[Scooby Dudek]

Ken Clarke just said to Andrew Neil you sound like a member of the ERG. 

Finally someone calling that bias cunt out.

[Anubis]

In the Lords the closure motion has passed by 239 votes to 118 - a majority of 121.

 

Commentators reckon this reflects the likely level of support to pass the bill in the Lords. Looks like it is well on course to happen.

[Anubis]

Get on this clown before it’s deleted/banned.

 

 

 

[Anubis]

 

 

[SasaS]

Why is this A50 bill so important, aren't May-Corbyn talks about the possible compromise a much bigger story here?

[Numero Veinticinco]

That's a fucking weird picture. They've got DCU (Desert Camouflage Uniform) which is a US desert Camp from, like, the fucking 90s. A really old fashioned vest, which I think is DPM pattern, a UK woodland pattern from 80s. It wouldn't be weird for SAS or attached units to have borrowed or worn different patterns, SF and SOF units do that, but still a weird choice for this guy to post. 

 

EDIT: Yeah, I was dubious so I had a look. He probably grabbed to from elite special forces website - some American site that dabbles. Originally it was posted here in 2008 (or could be earlier). Weird choice of picture. Those SAS/Signals guys in the shot probably wouldn't be too happy to be attached to that tweet.

 

[Sugar Ape]

 

[M_B]

 

21 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Why is this A50 bill so important, aren't May-Corbyn talks about the possible compromise a much bigger story here?

Well you're right, the possible compromise is the bigger story. The bill in the House of Lords is just an attempt to force the government to seek an extension rather than crash out next week if a compromise isn't reached.

[SasaS]

17 minutes ago, M_B said:

 

Well you're right, the possible compromise is the bigger story. The bill in the House of Lords is just an attempt to force the government to seek an extension rather than crash out next week if a compromise isn't reached.

 

Which won't be granted unless the government makes a compelling case for it, which the law does not and cannot stipulate.

[M_B]

Well yes, the EU is entitled to say no. But it won't, because it doesn't want to be blamed for the the UK crashing out.

 

Edit: And if the compromise isn't reached I would guess the case would be time for an election or referendum.

[Anubis]

I'm not so sure the EU wouldn't say no. They've been ramping up their preparations this week in readiness for the 12th April.

[Dr Nowt]

They have to though, don’t they. Who would trust the UK not to utterly fuck this up currently? They can’t be unprepared.

 

On the other hand, Tusk said very clearly when they gave the last extension that leaving with no deal had to be a UK decision and not something the EU forced to happen.

[SasaS]

26 minutes ago, M_B said:

Well yes, the EU is entitled to say no. But it won't, because it doesn't want to be blamed for the the UK crashing out.

 

Edit: And if the compromise isn't reached I would guess the case would be time for an election or referendum.

I think it's more a statement intended as political pressure than it achieves anything in practical terms.

Unless the government signals it intends to hold elections or a new referendum or something else, the extension will not be granted, i.e. if the government does not want the extension, it can make just a formal request knowing it will be rejected. And now, at this moment, I think it will. The EU is now primarily concerned with ending the uncertainty as soon as possible, rather than would the UK leave with or without a deal. Since it's no secret the right wing of the Conservative Party sees negotiations as just fucking the EU around until they are ready to crash out without a deal, the EU would be stupid not to be prepared.  

So, the decision remains with the government.

[M_B]

39 minutes ago, Anubis said:

I'm not so sure the EU wouldn't say no. They've been ramping up their preparations this week in readiness for the 12th April.

Think thats just a pressure tactic.

 

But I think the need for a reason for an extension that SasaS mentioned is valid. She would have to come up with something and by that point it would surely be an election or a referendum on her deal?

[M_B]

25 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I think it's more a statement intended as political pressure than it achieves anything in practical terms.

Yeah you might be right.

 

This is from the Guardian live news feed

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/apr/04/brexit-latest-developments-live-hammond-opens-up-cabinet-split-by-saying-mps-should-get-vote-on-second-referendum-live-news

Quote

 

The Cooper bill does not say the UK must have an article 50 extension. It just says the prime minister must give MPs the chance to vote for one, and that if they do, the PM must request one. The EU can always say no.

 

Within government there is a widespread assumption that the EU will grant an extension of some sort (although, if the Austrian foreign minister Karin Kneissl’s comments are anything to go by - see 12.01pm - it could end up being considerably shorter than people expect.)

 

But if the EU were to refuse an extension on Wednesday evening, the UK would be heading for a no-deal Brexit on Friday 12 April. Theresa May would still be able to avert that revoking article 50 before the deadline. Alternatively, she could try to get the deal through parliament on the Thursday and hope for a last-minute rethink from the EU.

 

The Cooper bill would not make a no-deal Brexit illegal.

 

 

[SasaS]

Also, legally and in some crazy scenario, wouldn't this law be worse than the backstop, because it may keep the UK in the EU indefinitely, e.g. if the EU decides it wants to keep UK as a member state, all it needs to do is come up with unacceptable deal terms and rather than leaving, UK must then ask for an extension, and so on. It removes a threat of no-deal from the UK's negotiating tactic.

EDIT Obviously, the parliament can always repeal its own laws later.

[M_B]

Presumeably Parliament would have to vote each time to force the PM to seek an extension. In that scenario there would surely come a time when Parliament wouldn't vote for it.

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, M_B said:

Presumeably Parliament would have to vote each time to force the PM to seek an extension. In that scenario there would surely come a time when Parliament wouldn't vote for it.

 

That's right, I failed to consider that.

Still, I see the law is an even stronger statement the majority is against no-deal, but in reality, it just asks the government that, before saying fuck it we're off and walking away whistling a happy tune, it must make a formal request for an extension (should MPs demand it).

[Anubis]

 

 

 

 

[Anubis]

 

 

[clangers]

She's just running the clock down to no deal now. I know the rumour that she's concerned about the union in a no deal but she's also made it very clear that no deal is now her 2nd favourite option. She won't tear the Tory party in two. Run the clock down negotiating with Labour, indicate a way forward next week, turn up at the EU summit with bugger all and hope the EU call it a day. She can then attempt to blame the EU and Labour.

[Boss]

The EU are to blame. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Boss said:

The EU are to blame. 

For what! 

[ZonkoVille77]

Putting a stupid question to stupid people was always going to cause trouble.