Brexit

[JohnB]

There is a line in the EU constitution explicitly excluding the applicant country vetoing itself.

[PinkDalek]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

No, it's the UK making request to the EU27 - the rest of the EU excluding the UK.

That’s what I thought until I spotted the Reuters article. Maybe the Benn Act was after the date the article was published. Bowing out now as it is getting political!

[AsleepInYorkshire]

As we are still members of the EU could Boris Johnson ask for an extension then veto it himself?

No, it's the UK making request to the EU27 - the rest of the EU excluding the UK.

That’s what I thought until I spotted the Reuters article. Maybe the Benn Act was after the date the article was published. Bowing out now as it is getting political!

I know I'm the only one who can see the irony of your comment

Remaining on focus

Does anyone know what's going on?

After yesterday, I seem to have lost the plot.

It would seem that Bercow could refuse the Boris deal being voted on tomorrow- presumably because he withdrew it after the Letwin amendment And the speaker won't allow the same thing to be brought forward twice.

Clearly Bercow denied. But today they voted on it. Which I don't get.

So Boris will have to make it suitably different before bringing it back to Parliament and then it will become amendable (Subject to GE or referendum etc)

Well again clearly not. But I don't know why they voted on it today?

Not looking for discussion.

I know, I know ... let's understand it all before we discuss

AiY

[swill453]

Well again clearly not. But I don't know why they voted on it today?

They didn't vote on "the deal". That is, they didn't vote on agreement in principle with what the government had negotiated with the EU.

In order to meet the tight timescale, they simply bypassed that, and went on to vote for a second reading of the WAB, the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, the legislation necessary to allow the UK to leave the EU. This of course is subject to amendment, with possible amendments making it very different to "the deal".

But talking about tight timescales, they voted against rushing it through in 3 days. So rather than propose a more realistic timescale, the government has put it in limbo while it waits for a response to Johnson's earlier request for an extension of the Article 50 process until January 31st 2020.

Scott.

[pochisoldi]

Well again clearly not. But I don't know why they voted on it today?

Each bill gets three readings.
The first reading is a formality and is effectively presenting the bill to parliament, and Parliament ordering that the bill be printed
The second reading is where Parliament agrees the principle, but not the detail of the bill - that's what happened yesterday (22nd).
That vote was passed.

The next vote was on the programme to get the bill through the committee stage and onto to it's third reading.
Johnson, being the democratic type, wanted to stiffle debate and rush the bill through in 3 days with the minimum of amendments, despite the bill probably being one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last 50 years.
That plan got blocked - despite Johnson's attempt at blackmail.

If Parliament (as a whole) thwarts Johnson's "3 day bluster and BS" plan, in 20 years, he will come to thank them, as he might have a chance to be remembered as the buffoon who became a statesman, rather than a buffoon who sold the country down the river and destroyed the United Kingdom in order to stake his place in history.

[Arborbridge]

* I believe Icelanders would claim our's is only the daughter of the real mother of parliaments, at Thingvallir (icelandic letter hunting unsuccessful on my PC)

Þingvellir, or even Þingvǫllr (Even when anglicised, your 'a' is a misspelling). Which isn't the parliament itself, but the place (field) of the parliament, located so as to be (so far as was possible) accessible from anywhere in Iceland (it was open to all to participate), and with a natural PA system in a cliff face that would help a speaker be heard by all in a big area. Indeed, a democratic institution that goes back well over 1000 years, though I believe it has moved indoors nowadays.

Closer to home, the Manx parliament goes by the same name with more anglicised spelling and pronunciation.

That "mother" of parliaments should probably be "matriarch". Something like Nanny Ogg.

Thanks for your spelling correction and further detail. It's a long time since I've been there - namely 52 years - so my only excuse is fading memory. Fragile memory recalls the parliament as being the Allthing (AllÞing?) - but I look forward to your correction

[Arborbridge]

As regards the timetable being voted down: does anybody know why Johnson (instead having a hissy fit and wanting a GE) doesn't just agree to a reasonable timetable assuming we receive an extension?
I can't see any point in getting the WAB through its second reading only to effectively withdraw it when parliament asks for a modest time to discuss.

Perhaps it because Johnson knows that when people have had proper time to look at the details, they will not support it. In other words, he was trying to pull a fast one and knowing he cannot get away with it prefers to warm up the blame game again.

Such a shame for such childish buffoonery when it seems some sort of agreement was possible.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Perhaps it because Johnson knows that when people have had proper time to look at the details, they will not support it. In other words, he was trying to pull a fast one and knowing he cannot get away with it prefers to warm up the blame game again.


Well he was already found out with the NI/GB customs declarations, so Gawd knows what else they will dig up.

.......and then there's the amendments. Customs Union? 2nd Referendum?

I think he hoped to push it through really fast to avoid all that pesky scrutiny.

I think you must be right. I can't see any other explanation. This reminds me of an MD I knew whose technique for getting things done was to ask for a signature in agreement hours before some deadline. He'd make you feel bad if you requested more time to look through the documents and make it a matter of "trust".
Johnson is the same. There really isn't a need for all this ridiculous haste except for his self-imposed deadline which is little more than arbitrary.

Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

As regards the timetable being voted down: does anybody know why Johnson (instead having a hissy fit and wanting a GE) doesn't just agree to a reasonable timetable assuming we receive an extension?
I can't see any point in getting the WAB through its second reading only to effectively withdraw it when parliament asks for a modest time to discuss.
Arb.

Yes, it's for his electorate. Both he and Farage learned a lesson immediately after the referendum, when they said faintly reasonable things and got denounced as traitors by a mob who have the ear of the media. Then they saw the Tories come fifth in the European Election. Boris concluded that any hint of keeping his toys in the pram will see him squeezed between the Faragists (themselves more extreme than ever before) and the rest of the world.

Though I'd've thought Labour's unelectability should see him through more-or-less regardless, unless the people (like BBC comedians) shrieking at Corbyn can do the same for him as they did for Farage - namely discredit real criticism by giving us absurd caricature.

[pochisoldi]

As regards the timetable being voted down: does anybody know why Johnson (instead having a hissy fit and wanting a GE) doesn't just agree to a reasonable timetable assuming we receive an extension?
I can't see any point in getting the WAB through its second reading only to effectively withdraw it when parliament asks for a modest time to discuss.

Perhaps it because Johnson knows that when people have had proper time to look at the details, they will not support it. In other words, he was trying to pull a fast one and knowing he cannot get away with it prefers to warm up the blame game again.

Such a shame for such childish buffoonery when it seems some sort of agreement was possible.

Arb.

1) He wants to be the man that took us out of the EU on 31st October 2019 (deal or no deal)

Then...

2) (I might be giving him too much credit for intelligence here) He realises that the agreement (and therefore the bill used to translate this into UK legislation), has its technical flaws, and finding and ironing out those flaws will take time, which will therefore require another round of negotiation with the EU. which will frustrate (1).

3) He realises that given his minority government status, and his ceremonial waving of two fingers at the DUP, means that his beautiful withdrawal bill (note I say "bill", not "agreement") is liable to be amended in ways that don't necessarily change the UK/EU agreement, but does change how/if/or when the agreement comes into force in the UK.
Pick any combination of options from the following list:
(i) Sections enacting the agreement not to come into force until the agreement is approved in a referendum.
(ii) As per (ii), but providing that if the agreement is rejected by referendum, Article 50 should be revoked.
(iii) Agreement is binned in its entirety, and replaced by a new version of the Benn Act to continue negotiations (extend A50 again)
(iv) Provisions for extending the implementation period are changed, extended, some parts made mandatory (in the same manner as the Benn act, e.g. if no trade deal is agreed, a mandatory request to extend the implementation period)

4) As an extension of (3), Parliament forces the government to yield to the EU in some areas, e.g. EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in the EU, various bits of mutual recognition (EHIC, social security), participation in certain open markets/customs union.

As far as the big picture is concerned, in the short term Boris wants one of the following:

His agreement signed off by Parliament
No deal Brexit agreed by Parliament
The existing parliament (Sycophant+ERG Tories, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, Independents, Tory dissenters/expelees) to be replaced by a a new one with a Tory majority, and where that majority is formed of BoJo+ERG sycophants and the awkward squad are dispatched into retirement (Ken Clarke), or the political wilderness.

There will be a general election in the next 12 months, regardless of how Brexit proceeds, because a minority Tory government which is poles apart from any other grouping in the Commons (meaning no chance of a coalition, never mind a "supply and confidence" arrangement) will struggle to push any legislation through Parliament.

IMHO the bad news is that there's likely to be another weak Tory government, because (brexit aside) given a choice between Corbyn and Johnson, (a) Johnson is the "least worst option" and (b) given the choice between someone who's "a bit too far right" and someone who's a "bit to far left" the right winger will get the job on the basis of financial self preservation...

[Breelander]

If you'd just agree to hold your meetings in here, you'd have PLENTY of time to figure things out before the deadline.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

[servodude]

If you'd just agree to hold your meetings in here, you'd have PLENTY of time to figure things out before the deadline.

Saw that earlier this week; Brexit on XKCD, who'd have thought!

- sd

[Breelander]

Saw that earlier this week; Brexit on XKCD, who'd have thought!

Randall Munroe was in the UK for a book tour a couple of weeks ago (I went to see him). He said he he found our news comforting, put the problems back in the US in perspective (Trump vs. Brexit, compare and contrast)