Will Brexit happen?

Conina

Takedap wrote: »

Now looks like Boris would rather cancel the bill rather than let people read it before they decide.

Now it looks like Boris would rather cancel the bill and go for a GE than let Parliament keep putting off a decision on the bill in their attempt to force another unnecessarily-long extension you mean?

Thrugelmir

Aegis wrote: »

1. The UK should remain in the EU. (expected impact on current GDP - Nil)

What's the relevance of GDP ?

Takedap

Conina wrote: »

Now it looks like Boris would rather cancel the bill and go for a GE than let Parliament keep putting off a decision on the bill in their attempt to force another unnecessarily-long extension you mean?

No. If even the Brexit Secretary doesn't fully understand it, how can MPs be expected to vote for it without scrutiny?



It's just Boris trying to achieve his self-inflicted deadline.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

I heard a Labour politician say that if we are going to have a referendum it should be Boris's deal against an amended deal that includes staying in customs union. What do you think of that.

Insufficient support. Remain MP's will want a third option on the paper.

Aegis

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's the relevance of GDP ?

It's an indicator of the cost to the country of carrying out the result. I think it's something everyone should be aware of before voting on this again.

Conina

Takedap wrote: »

No. If even the Brexit Secretary doesn't fully understand it, how can MPs be expected to vote for it without scrutiny?



It's just Boris trying to achieve his self-inflicted deadline.

Oh dear, you really do not understand do you?

It is already being scrutinised in parliament. The argument is that there isn't enough time to properly scrutinise - in other words MP's don't want to do what they are elected & paid for and actually work to scrutinise the bill. They would have to do longer hours in the house to get it through see and - bless them - they're just not up to it (maybe, because it's not settled yet). No, our MP's might vote not to do the work in favour of pre-empting an unnecessary extension. Even the EU said it would be possible in the time-frame please note, so it's quite obvious that if our MP's don't vote to try & get the act through that they are just delaying on purpose and are not really interested in the UK getting a deal with the EU.

I keep seeing this about Boris imposing a deadline. That's wrong, because the EU gave us the deadline back in April when they said we had an extension until October 31st.

phillw

Conina wrote: »

They would have to do longer hours in the house to get it through see and - bless them - they're just not up to it (maybe, because it's not settled yet).

You're right. They aren't up to the 100 hour days required to scrutinize it in the 3 days Boris wants to trick them into.

Conina wrote: »

I keep seeing this about Boris imposing a deadline. That's wrong, because the EU gave us the deadline back in April when they said we had an extension until October 31st.

He sat around doing nothing running down the clock before negotiating. He set the deadline on purpose so that parliament wouldn't have enough time to debate it.

Even the brexit secretary Stephen Barclay doesn't understand the implications of everything in it & it's his job.

If they don't pass it without scrutiny then Boris throws his toys out of his pram.
If they do pass it then Boris gets to enact a brexit that everyone will hate.

Supporting Boris through blind faith in brexit is not good for the country. It just sets up more uncertainty, because this agreement only covers up until the end of 2020 but the negotiations on our trade deal with the EU is estimated to take three years.

One advantage for remainers is that it's just moving the cliff edge by 12 months as Boris has ruled out extending the transition period. So it's an automatic no deal brexit, which will trigger protests and increase the chance that we actually stay in or very closely aligned with the EU. This is why Nigel Farage is against Boris' deal

The EU also has to pass the deal & there are some things they want to attach to that.

Conina

phillw wrote: »

You're right. They aren't up to the 100 hour days required to scrutinize it in the 3 days Boris wants to trick them into.

:rotfl: Which must be why, as I write, the house is nigh-on 50/50 split? :rotfl:

You know full well that it has nothing whatsoever to do with what MP's perceive as being good for the country but that it is pure self-interest. Anything to delay or overturn Brexit. Well it has failed because either this goes through now, or BoJo will win a majority in a GE soon & you stand a good chance then of an even more "hard" Brexit than the one being proposed now.

Well done, foolish remainers.

phillw

Conina wrote: »

You know full well that it has nothing whatsoever to do with what MP's perceive as being good for the country but that it is pure self-interest.

You know full well that isn't true. There isn't enough time to do their job in the time Boris has given them.

I'm not foolish to call the result of a GE, but if he gets his majority then you may be happy for a short while but afterwards you'll regret it.

Boris is only proposing a hard brexit, this deal is just a tactical misdirection. It has to be fought with every fiber so that even if the worst happens and he succeeds, we can say we did our best.

Leavers are starting up project fear again, I wasn't scared about all the things you said during the referendum & I'm not scared now.

Herzlos

I wonder if a GE would get blocked again, or if Corbyn is happy he can extend the deadline again when it runs out, so he's not walking into a no-deal trap.

Conina wrote: »

Now it looks like Boris would rather cancel the bill and go for a GE than let Parliament keep putting off a decision on the bill in their attempt to force another unnecessarily-long extension you mean?

How dare MP's want to take time to read the bill properly before voting on it. That Johnson would rather abandon it and call a GE is pretty telling that either (a) the deal is awful and he doesn't want any scrutiny or (b) he had no intention of taking that deal and is still trying to work a no-deal (to quickly turn into a no-brexit) in order to keep his sponsors happy.


What's your objection to taking a few weeks longer to make sure we do it properly?