[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

i thought the amendment was to do with the timing of the vote ?

Nothing has changed

No it's was to give the 'sovereign democratic' parliament the ability to reject Theresa's power grab.

Theresa's proposal was agree to whatever I come up with or crash out on WTO.

Now parliament can decide to bounce that and refuse both ideas.

why the FFS?

Because, you're still peddling the line that the government was going to allow this vote anyway, when all we've seen in the last week and beyond is that they cannot be trusted. As I said, if it was guaranteed, then why oppose the amendment?

I'm trying to see past your position taking as trolling, but pretending this vote didn't matter now that it's been lost doesn't wash and I ran out of patience.

That's why.

The HoC gets a vote it knew is was having

[img] [/img]

[quote=cchris2lou ]i thought the amendment was to do with the timing of the vote ?

No

The amendment says this power could only be exercised if they were “subject to the prior enactment of a statute by parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”

Parliament now has to approve the government’s final Brexit deal by passing a separate written law once the terms of the withdrawal agreement are known. This could, in theory, allow MPs to send May back to the negotiating table if they do not like the deal.

The HoC gets a vote it knew is was having....Nothing has changed

Then why contest it at all? That's what I don't get. I agree it is very unlikely to change much, so why did the government waste so much effort fighting it?

The HoC gets a vote it knew is was having....Nothing has changed

Someone should tell Dominic Raab and the rest of the tory shambles. He seems to think it's a significant defeat. Maybe some clever grown-up should explain it to us in simple words.

As I understand it, previously MPs would have had a vote, but if they voted against government, we'd leave with no deal....so a meaningless vote. Now, the deal has to be approved before we can leave.....

I could be wrong tho...maybe wishful thinking and it's not as good as that

why did the government waste so much effort

It's all in the game, yo.

Now parliament can decide to bounce that and refuse both ideas.

No it will still be a Deal or No Deal vote, Article 50 sees to that. They are just guaranteed it now.

Then why contest it at all?

because they need to demonstrate how strong and stable they are.......

That went well then.

Aside all the panto villain stuff - serious point to me is that parliament and parties are split by this situation. May had the chance to accept that parliament is demanding proper scrutiny of this situation, but was unwilling to do that preferring to bully and whip her MP's and paid associates into line. But she couldn't even do that.

So now we have shown to the EU that she doesn't have the mandate she wants them to think they have, which is not good. But - in comparison to a mandate to do what the hell she / they want, it's a price worth paying. IMHO.

No it will still be a Deal or No Deal vote

You have a different understanding to me, before this evening that's exactly what it was.

WTO isn't an option, (unless you read the express) so what ever treesa came up with would be what happens. Parliament can now kick that out if it sucks, and it will suck.

so why did the government waste so much effort fighting it?

Secondly the vote before was accept the EU negotiated deal or have no deal , as we were definitely leaving, now its up to parliament. If they dont accept then the executive dont have the power to do anything much as they dont have the henry 8 th powers so they have to , theoretically anyway, re negotiate. A mexican stand off basically

Because, you're still peddling the line that the government was going to allow this vote anyway,

True.

when all we've seen in the last week and beyond is that they cannot be trusted.

Untrue.

Considering how many times Davis and the Brexiters have been caught barefaced bullshitting lately.

The only way to ensure they keep to anything is to get in law.

Ultimately if the brexidiots had taken their time b4 triggering A50 then they could've come up with a workable long term strategy to make Brexit work.

Just layer upon layer of self-pwning really

[url= https://twitter.com/ProfMarkElliott/status/941045733591044097 ]Brief Analysis here - sums up well[/url]

[quote=mefty ]Now parliament can decide to bounce that and refuse both ideas.
No it will still be a Deal or No Deal vote, Article 50 sees to that. They are just guaranteed it now.

They always were guaranteed a vote so that is a deeply mistaken , if not purposefully misleading, statement.
DO you want me to quote tories ministers to you as you might find them more convincing than me ?

In the UK, the Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship. The Government will not implement any parts of the Withdrawal Agreement - for example by using Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) bill - until after this vote has taken place.

If Davis' efforts in this week make you trust them, that's your opinion. Sorry, it isn't mine. That's why i see the 'promise' that parliament would have a say in this as empty, and I'm glad it will be in legislation to guarantee it now.

You're an intelligent man, clearly, and I can't for the life of me understand why you can't see why other intelligent people just don't see the way you see it, yet you keep on just with your 'nope' and 'untrue' single word dismissals. Or rather there is an explanation that I'm trying to look past.

But as I say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, in the end I'm coming round to that theory.

There’s also a suggestion flying around that this vote will make the specific and mandated timing of exit more difficult - possibly by making the exit date next week difficult?
Still to get my head around how that works.

Davis' efforts in this week make you trust them, that's your opinion

Doesn't "no deal" now mean we essential stay in the single market and customs union due to the Irish border issue since Theresa May amended that document?

They always were guaranteed a vote so that is a deeply mistaken , if not purposefully misleading, statement.

Nope, upgrades ministerial assurance to legal assurance - see analysis I linked to. Short twitter thread by Professor of Public Law.

Doesn't "no deal" now mean we essential stay in the single market and customs union due to the Irish border issue since Theresa May amended that document?

No because that is part of the Deal

Only if they stick to it Horatio. Which surely they will. 😐

upgrades ministerial assurance to legal assurance

What is your point ?

Doesn't "no deal" now mean we essential stay in the single market and customs union due to the Irish border issue since Theresa May amended that document?

Depends how much balls parliament has and whether corbyn whips abstention again.

As of now, all bets are off.

What we do know is that May's authority is now sub zero, and the Europeans know that. Most of them can actually do thier jobs and can use Google translate.

I predict we're looking at an extention long enough for UK opinion to come back round to staying in.

Because they don’t want to TOJ they simply don’t want to.

Nothing over the weekend was untrue. The noise is simply because some EU players were embarrassed that the truth was made clear.

All the noise and the wasted time does I make a HB more likely. That REALLY is stupid

mefty - Member
Brief Analysis here - sums up well

Good summary, but with one caveat

Key point to remember is that Article 50 operates automatically, by default, to eject UK from EU on 29 March 2019, whether or not there is an agreement, and whether or not Parliament likes it.

I know he's a lawyer and I'm not, but other lawyers and officials, including Brexit ministers, have suggested that there's nothing to prevent a delay by agreement between the UK and EU. So it doesn't have to be that a rejection of the deal condemns to a no deal.

Of course you can also argue that if the EU offers its 'best' deal and Parliament rejects it, why would the EU then agree to extend the timeframe to negotiate further - but it does allow for a proper discussion and negotiation rather than a rushed, botched job.

Thats what Greave would want you to believe. And you are falling for it.,,

Any news on Joes contradictory comments Matty or are you still attributing them to DD?

HoratioHufnagel - Member

Doesn't "no deal" now mean we essential stay in the single market and customs union due to the Irish border issue since Theresa May amended that document?

Correct

Absolutely cast iron in the deal. Obvious and clear

the reason this vote is important is that it gives the house of commons the final say on any deal - not the government. Its also highly symbolic.

If it ws unimportant why did May and co fight so hard to win the vote?

Mefty - it’s not a deal / no deal vote. It’s legislation, which May’s joke of a government will propose of course, but can be amended to say something different. Who knows what it will actually come to. Brinksmanship I suspect.

THM - Davis fibbed if not lied about sectorial studies, he and May outlined a deal with the EU which he then came back and said we shouldn’t worry about because it was just an outline and didn’t mean anything (he then of course backtracked when the EU called him out).
Not the actions of a trustworthy man. As for the rest of the government - Gove? BoJo? Would you buy a used car?

What is your point ?

The one that I made which you described as misleading - because of Article 50 the dynamic hasn't changed but there is increased parliamentary leverage.

Indeed it's been a rush job since May & her gang of amateurs triggered A50 with no plan, no consensus & no clue how bad they'd **** up

& Davis is as trustworthy as Hillary the Butcher from Royston Vasey, remember he didn't recognize a bill above 10bn and then his hilarious real/not real impact assessments, the man's waaay out of his depth

make a HB more likely. That REALLY is stupid

HB means crashing out into WTO, that's simply not going to happen.
That's why tonight's vote was so significant.
Before tonight the only option was WTO or accept whatever pants deal our crack team of elite negotiators came up with.

Do keep up.

it’s not a deal / no deal vote. It’s legislation, which May’s joke of a government will propose of course, but can be amended to say something different. Who knows what it will actually come to. Brinksmanship I suspect.

But if it doesn't pass there is no deal and the legislation can't chnage the agreement between EU and Government.

upgrades ministerial assurance to legal assurance

So they were assured the vote then, as i said, as your expert accepts
What is your point ?

Because there's a lack of trust in ministerial assurance. But if it was already assured, why fight the amendment and risk being defeated and losing control?

Mefty - no it can’t. Let’s see what it can do. 😉

IGM. I am referring to the legally binding issue. If anyone though that was the case then more fool then. Always tends to understand the detail

Ditto today’s vote.

Absolutely cast iron in the deal. Obvious and clear

Which is a good indication that the opposite is the case.

why fight the amendment and risk being defeated and losing control?

Do I really have to quote omar again?

Thats what Greave would want you to believe. And you are falling for it.,,

Is that at me?

I was quoting Steve Baker - I know since then Theresa has also said that the date would be enshrined in legislation, but who's to say that will be accepted or indeed could not be amended by further legislation.

IGM every trick under the book so far to avoid respecting a democratic result.

the legislation can't chnage the agreement between EU and Government.

However as the Prime Minister made clear in her Florence speech, the European Union considers that it is not “legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union”. This is because the EU treaties require that the agreement governing our future relationship can only be legally concluded once the UK is a third country (i.e. once it has left the EU). So the Withdrawal Agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship.

The one that I made which you described as misleading

Do I really have to quote omar again?

please do, I don't recall the reference (genuinely)

why fight the amendment and risk being defeated and losing control?

Please THM!!!

This is democracy. We had a GE and this is the parliament we got. Democracy rolls on.

If you’re worrying about the referendum a while back, May should not have called the GE. Today’s MPs voting cannot be bound by events during a previous parliament except in so far as they are bound by legislation.