Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Some of the comments on here though... 

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157590377167560&id=148510282559

 

Brexit is a cult. 

[Barrington Womble]

So it seems that Johnson is not going to ask for an extension. It seems to me this leaves us in one of 3 situations. 

 

1. He gets a deal, probably throwing his DUP mates under a bus with a Northern Ireland only backstop. Would that get through the commons? Even if all the recently kicked out Tories with no party back him, they're going to be pretty short, as surely the DUP will not back it? He might need to DUP after any GE, so this would be a massive gamble.

2. We end up with a massive legal battle as Johnson refuses to go to the EU. Is this Johnson's plan and hope it can stretch beyond 31st October with appeals and we crash out?

3. There's a vote of no confidence in the government allowing a unity government to ask for the extension and call an election. 

 

I can't quite get my head around it and can't help but feel this is all designed to play for Johnson getting support in an election and then we get his type of brexit if we want it or not. 

[Lario]

What about the deal May negotiated?

[Vincent Vega]

There’s talk that some MPs are lining up to revoke Article 50. Maybe he wants to goad them into this as it means we avoid crashing out and he can use the anger amongst Leave voters to benefit politically at a forthcoming election?

[Barrington Womble]

11 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

There’s talk that some MPs are lining up to revoke Article 50. Maybe he wants to goad them into this as it means we avoid crashing out and he can use the anger amongst Leave voters to benefit politically at a forthcoming election?

I only slightly caught it this morning on Marr, but I think Sadiq khan was suggesting something along those lines. Revoke article 50, go to Brussels to find a deal if we were to leave, fully negotiate it and then put that to a new referendum on a stay or go basis. I think that would be a massive mistake myself. I think what appears to be labours current plan of extend, get a deal, put it to the vote would create less of a backlash. And if you want to stay, probably has more chance of succeeding. 

[skend04]

We can't revoke Art.50 if just going to invoke it again. That was the verdict from that European court case.

[moof]

It’s an awful policy, can’t see anyone with a modicum of sense taking it seriously. 

[Barrington Womble]

16 hours ago, skend04 said:

We can't revoke Art.50 if just going to invoke it again. That was the verdict from that European court case.

It wouldn't be though would it? It's revoke, strike an exit deal, have a new referendum and if people voted for the new deal, start all over. 

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

It wouldn't be though would it? It's revoke, strike an exit deal, have a new referendum and if people voted for the new deal, start all over. 

Make the new referendum legally binding, but with min turnout and winning margin.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

16 hours ago, moof said:

It’s an awful policy, can’t see anyone with a modicum of sense taking it seriously. 

The Lib Dems are taking it seriously...

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Johnson saying the UK will not accept any extension from the EU. He's obviously goading them into saying 'Fuck you then, we won't offer one,' a plan which isn't going to work. I've said from the off that I don't think Brexit will happen, certainly not without a deal. Any reasonable person would say just scrap it and start the whole procedure again in a few years, especially now people realise the complexities of it all, the lies which have been spread and the incompetence of those negotiating as they are desperate to see it through. All Brexit has done is to turn over that massive rock and let the scum have a voice as they crawl out from beneath it. Obviously some genuine people want Brexit for whatever reason, but the majority are just cunts.  

[Numero Veinticinco]

On 14/09/2019 at 12:32, Nelly-Torres said:

Brexit is a cult. 

Should be the tagline for entire remain campaign.

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

It wouldn't be though would it? It's revoke, strike an exit deal, have a new referendum and if people voted for the new deal, start all over. 

Well, let's revoke it then just forget the rest. Nah, I think you're spot on. If that's an option - and I'm not sure it is - then it would certainly seem to have some sort of common sense behind it. Then again, the entire thing would seriously ignite tension within the country. 

1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

Make the new referendum legally binding, but with min turnout and winning margin.  

Could certainly deal with that. Fucking hell, your lot got us in a pickle with this. 

[Jairzinho]

3 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

Johnson saying the UK will not accept any extension from the EU. He's obviously goading them into saying 'Fuck you then, we won't offer one,' a plan which isn't going to work. I've said from the off that I don't think Brexit will happen, certainly not without a deal. Any reasonable person would say just scrap it and start the whole procedure again in a few years, especially now people realise the complexities of it all, the lies which have been spread and the incompetence of those negotiating as they are desperate to see it through. All Brexit has done is to turn over that massive rock and let the scum have a voice as they crawl out from beneath it. Obviously some genuine people want Brexit for whatever reason, but the majority are just cunts.  

Plenty are cunts, plenty more are just thick as mince. 

 

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

Plenty are cunts, plenty more are just thick as mince. 

 

 

 

That goes without saying. It really is an abomination to see people with very little swallowing the lies of the elite and in doing so voting for something/someone who will make their lives even worse. They have been convinced by those who want to make money out of Brexit that it is a fight worth fighting and mostly pushing the anti immigrant lines which the thick as mince brigade love. 

[Bjornebye]

Fuck them. Revoke Brexit. 

 

"How daaaare you do that we voted to leave we voted f....oooh look a pen" 

[Spy Bee]

I reckon he's going to go ahead with No Deal Brexit. It's just a game to him.

[Barrington Womble]

https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/

 

The flaw in the Benn Act

 

There is a flaw in the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 (the “Benn Act“) and, if MPs want to avoid us leaving without a deal, they may need to take counter-measures.

The flaw arises in circumstances where the Prime Minister brings a Withdrawal Agreement (“WA”) to Parliament for approval. And it arises from the mismatch between the provisions of the Benn Act and those of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “2018 Act“).

What follows is a slightly simplified description of the flaw, to aid readability.

To avoid the PM having to request an extension from the EU under section 1 of the Benn Act the Commons must approve the WA. If they do, on or prior to 19 October, the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension falls away.

However, the provisions of the 2018 Act specify further preconditions, beyond approval by the Commons of the WA, before the WA can be ratified and No Deal avoided.

Those preconditions are set out in section 13(1) of the 2018 Act and include the passing of a further Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement (the “Further Obligations”).

Summing up, if the Commons approves the WA but these Further Obligations are not satisfied before 31 October 2019, then two consequences follow. First, the Benn Act will not apply to require the PM to request an extension from the EU. And, second, we will leave with No Deal.

So, imagine the PM says privately to the ERG ‘support my WA and I will deliver No Deal.’ In those circumstances, with the help of some Labour MPs, the Commons might approve even Theresa May’s WA.

The PM would thus have escaped the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension and could deliver No Deal.

He could, for example, again suspend Parliament (subject of course to the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court hearing). There is some evidence (see below) that he plans to do this. And we would leave without a deal.

Indeed, even without again suspending Parliament, he may well be able to deliver No Deal simply by refusing to put before the Commons an Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement. In such circumstances the Further Obligations would not be satisfied in advance of 31 October 2019 and we would leave with No Deal.

I had been discussing the above privately with trusted MPs and friends. However, because there is circumstantial evidence, set out below, that the PM’s office is aware of this flaw, I am putting it into the public domain in the hope that MPs consider what counter-measures they may wish to take.

The best way to bypass the flaw is for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal.

In those circumstances, I believe the Courts, likely in consequence of proceedings afoot in Scotland, will enforce the Benn Act and require the PM to request an extension.

However, nothing is certain. There may be other flaws I have failed to spot. And the EU may refuse an extension. The situation now, as has always been the case, is that the only absolutely certain way to avoid No Deal is for Parliament to legislate to change the default if no agreement is reached from No Deal to revoke.

***

The circumstantial evidence is:

A story, reported in today’s Mail on Sunday, that a further suspension of Parliament is planned.

Reports that the Prime Minister is meeting members of the ERG privately.

Widely reported briefings that the Prime Minister plans to put a re-heated version of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement before Parliament.

[clangers]

10 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I reckon he's going to go ahead with No Deal Brexit. It's just a game to him.

I've thought that too but I'm just beginning to suspect that Boris is going to bottle no-deal given that a GE would now be after a no-deal exit in which case the potential carnage of a no-deal might not play well with the electorate? He clearly wanted to go to the country before they'd see the impact of no-deal.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

16 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

I reckon he's going to go ahead with No Deal Brexit. It's just a game to him.

 

I doubt he wants 'A no Deal' scenario himself. Someone has just convinced him it could be a good career move so he's hedging his bets. He's desperate to see Brexit through though, he's just hoping to pick up votes from the democracy is democracy brigade. Thankfully his shit won#t wash in the commons and enough MP's are reeling him in. 

[magicrat]

17 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/

 

The flaw in the Benn Act

 

There is a flaw in the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.2) Act 2019 (the “Benn Act“) and, if MPs want to avoid us leaving without a deal, they may need to take counter-measures.

The flaw arises in circumstances where the Prime Minister brings a Withdrawal Agreement (“WA”) to Parliament for approval. And it arises from the mismatch between the provisions of the Benn Act and those of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (the “2018 Act“).

What follows is a slightly simplified description of the flaw, to aid readability.

To avoid the PM having to request an extension from the EU under section 1 of the Benn Act the Commons must approve the WA. If they do, on or prior to 19 October, the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension falls away.

However, the provisions of the 2018 Act specify further preconditions, beyond approval by the Commons of the WA, before the WA can be ratified and No Deal avoided.

Those preconditions are set out in section 13(1) of the 2018 Act and include the passing of a further Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement (the “Further Obligations”).

Summing up, if the Commons approves the WA but these Further Obligations are not satisfied before 31 October 2019, then two consequences follow. First, the Benn Act will not apply to require the PM to request an extension from the EU. And, second, we will leave with No Deal.

So, imagine the PM says privately to the ERG ‘support my WA and I will deliver No Deal.’ In those circumstances, with the help of some Labour MPs, the Commons might approve even Theresa May’s WA.

The PM would thus have escaped the obligation in the Benn Act to request an extension and could deliver No Deal.

He could, for example, again suspend Parliament (subject of course to the outcome of this week’s Supreme Court hearing). There is some evidence (see below) that he plans to do this. And we would leave without a deal.

Indeed, even without again suspending Parliament, he may well be able to deliver No Deal simply by refusing to put before the Commons an Act implementing the Withdrawal Agreement. In such circumstances the Further Obligations would not be satisfied in advance of 31 October 2019 and we would leave with No Deal.

I had been discussing the above privately with trusted MPs and friends. However, because there is circumstantial evidence, set out below, that the PM’s office is aware of this flaw, I am putting it into the public domain in the hope that MPs consider what counter-measures they may wish to take.

The best way to bypass the flaw is for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal.

In those circumstances, I believe the Courts, likely in consequence of proceedings afoot in Scotland, will enforce the Benn Act and require the PM to request an extension.

However, nothing is certain. There may be other flaws I have failed to spot. And the EU may refuse an extension. The situation now, as has always been the case, is that the only absolutely certain way to avoid No Deal is for Parliament to legislate to change the default if no agreement is reached from No Deal to revoke.

***

The circumstantial evidence is:

A story, reported in today’s Mail on Sunday, that a further suspension of Parliament is planned.

Reports that the Prime Minister is meeting members of the ERG privately.

Widely reported briefings that the Prime Minister plans to put a re-heated version of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement before Parliament.

I’ve seen this and it’s very worrying 

MPs can try and close the loopholes when they return but the only certain way to take no deal outcome off the table is to revoke.

i doubt they will have the balls for that

[Spy Bee]

21 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

I doubt he wants 'A no Deal' scenario himself. Someone has just convinced him it could be a good career move so he's hedging his bets. He's desperate to see Brexit through though, he's just hoping to pick up votes from the democracy is democracy brigade. Thankfully his shit won#t wash in the commons and enough MP's are reeling him in. 

Have you seen the amount of money people stand to make?

[Guest Pistonbroke]

13 minutes ago, Spy Bee said:

Have you seen the amount of money people stand to make?

 

Indeed, but those type of people will always find ways of making money. Most people will lose out though, especially the younger ones. People are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee, I'm pretty certain a new referendum would see a different outcome, plus if a 'No Deal scenario was one of the options it would get obliterated. 

[Pidge]

There wouldn't be an appetite to discuss any exit deal if we revoke.  What would be needed before invoking again would be a clear contingency plan and heavy investment in public services, porta and borders, alongside (probably tax driven) encouragement for companies to locate key production facilities for essentials such as medication in the country once again.

 

We would also need to rebuild trust and rather than endlessly pitch baseless blame at the EU so any future talks can be held in good faith.

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Pidge said:

There wouldn't be an appetite to discuss any exit deal if we revoke.  What would be needed before invoking again would be a clear contingency plan and heavy investment in public services, porta and borders, alongside (probably tax driven) encouragement for companies to locate key production facilities for essentials such as medication in the country once again.

Yes, offer something to the people that voted to leave.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, magicrat said:

I’ve seen this and it’s very worrying 

MPs can try and close the loopholes when they return but the only certain way to take no deal outcome off the table is to revoke.

i doubt they will have the balls for that

I agree, I don't see anyone going for a revoke. But this is much easier from what I can see. Johnson doesn't have a majority. Just do a vote of no confidence and be done with it. The opposition parties will just need to find a way to get together, find a PM and get it extended, then go to the electorate in a GE. The temporary PM could even try to negotiate a 12 month extension so the immediate bullet goes away.