Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[SpackleFrog]

the brexiteers will go down with brexit - what have they got to lose? they can look their voters in the eye and say - we fought for it, we didn't cave in. A far easier position to live with then enabling mays shitty deal. They cant row back now - they'd look (even more) ridiculous. They'd still be mps. still getting paid. they are (sadly) not actually dying in a ditch.
And rejecting mays deal does not automatically mean Corbyn in no.10 - any more than mays deal going through prevents it.

Indeed - May's deal going through would basically collapse the govt anyway and make the election (although not governing) much easier for Corbyn.

 

[Sasaferrato]

no. not in a million years. something like 70-100 tory mps are against it. the revolt is only getting bigger - especially since the legal advice confirms one of the main weaknesses (it could lead to the UK in Euro limbo indefinitely) . May and her deal are fucked.

Has the Attorney General's advice to the government been published yet?

 

[Sasaferrato]

At 16:49 here:
Brexit: MPs rail against backstop plans in second day of debate on May's deal – Politics live
... there's speculation that the grieve amendment from yesterday may make brexiteers move towards May's deal - as it would be the most brexity outcome of all the possibilities then opened up.

Staggering that, as a process, they are making decisions on the hoof without really understanding the legal or parliamentary scenarios their actions create/disallow. Funny as fuck. Sort of.

That happens anywhere in any scenario when you are confronting something that has never been seen before.

 

[brogdale]

Has the Attorney General's advice to the government been published yet?

Yes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Has the Attorney General's advice to the government been published yet?

Yea. Linked to above. Says what everyone assumed it said.

 

[killer b]

... there's speculation that the grieve amendment from yesterday may make brexiteers move towards May's deal - as it would be the most brexity outcome of all the possibilities then opened up.

This is the government's line, being repeated by credulous (or complicit) lobby journalists. No need to help them out is there.

 

[Winot]

Yea. Linked to above. Says what everyone assumed it said.

Apart from Fornicator who thinks you need to make £500K a year rather than just read Twitter.

 

[Wilf]

That happens anywhere in any scenario when you are confronting something that has never been seen before.

I was being ever so slightly rhetorical. But yes, new situations, unintended consequences and all that, but there's a frantic idiocy about this, which largely comes out of May running the clock down. The 'how the fuck did we get into this situation' question should leave them rather embarrassed.

 

[Winot]

Staggering that, as a process, they are making decisions on the hoof without really understanding the legal or parliamentary scenarios their actions create/disallow. Funny as fuck. Sort of.

Most of them have only recently understood the result of voting for Art. 50.

 

[Wilf]

This is the government's line, being repeated by credulous lobby journalists. No need to help them out is there.

I'm not really helping them out, just incredulous at the grand old duke of York-ing, volte face-ery and headless chickening that's going on.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I was being ever so slightly rhetorical. But yes, new situations, unintended consequences and all that, but there's a frantic idiocy about this, which largely comes out of May running the clock down. The 'how the fuck did we get into this situation' question should leave them rather embarrassed.

The 'how' is easy.

The 'how the fuck do we get out of this?' less so.

I'm nailing my colours to the 'second referendum' mast, and praying for a sensible outcome.

The advice that we can withdraw from Article 50 without penalty is cheering.

 

[andysays]

Brexit: Legal advice warns of Irish border 'stalemate'

When lawyers give legal advice they are expected to speak frankly. Many will conclude this advice is franker and starker than the way in which the government has presented the legal implications of the withdrawal agreement. In particular on the Northern Ireland backstop, it is there in black and white, that in the absence of an agreement replacing it, the backstop will continue indefinitely. The UK could not force the EU to conclude an agreement bringing it to an end.

That punctures the government's optimism on the issue. Whereas Article 50 allowed the UK to pull out of the EU, there is no provision for the UK to pull out of the withdrawal agreement. That will pour petrol on the flames of the political debate

Rubs hands together in delight...

 

[Kaka Tim]

yeah but - will the gammon battalions march on the capital? *




*(no they won't)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This might not be an entirely radical, cutting edge, groundbreadking point - that governments are duplicitous and dishonest... but it's interesting seeing bits of the debate after the legal opinion was published in full. Particularly on the backstop, a couple of MPs are saying they will now definitely vote against the deal (latest I've seen was the former tory chief whip). If they are genuine in that, that seeing the legal advice has made a material difference to their voting intentions, there's an obvious conclusion to be drawn i.e. government were dishonestly withholding the information and, in practice, deceiving MPs. Rather than a farty vote of censure, MPs should be apoplectic. Instead it's the government making the running with Leadsome saying you 'will regret forcing us to give you the legal advice'.

They're not genuine. We all knew exactly what the legal advice said and exactly why the govt didn't want to publish it. if seeing the legal advice has genuinely made a material difference, then either they are complete morons or they are using this as cover to justify their upcoming act of disloyalty to the govt.

This deal is not only dead, its corpse is being flogged. It's extremely likely that the ECJ will have confirmed the revokable nature of A50 by the time of the vote, removing excuses for the Labour right to support May. There could be a three-figure majority against the deal come next week.

 

[Wilf]

They're not genuine. We all knew exactly what the legal advice said and exactly why the govt didn't want to publish it. if seeing the legal advice has genuinely made a material difference, then either they are complete morons or they are using this as cover to justify their upcoming act of disloyalty to the govt.

This deal is not only dead, its corpse is being flogged. It's extremely likely that the ECJ will have confirmed the revokable nature of A50 by the time of the vote, removing excuses for the Labour right to support May. There could be a three-figure majority against the deal come next week.

Ok, another way of putting it is: the very reasons the govt wanted to keep it for their eyes only are the very reasons mps should be annoyed at the attempt to keep it secret.

 

[Kaka Tim]

some speculation that May will withdraw the bill. If she loses by the sort of margins being talk about - she could well be finished. Resign or cabinet push her out. I mean - what is the point of theresa may?

 

[killer b]

I'm not really helping them out, just incredulous at the grand old duke of York-ing, volte face-ery and headless chickening that's going on.

ok, but saying there is speculation about something that is only really being speculated about because of some desperate spinning by number 10 without mentioning the source of the speculation does help strip it of it's political purpose, so it is helping them out. even if only a tiny bit. lots of tiny bits make up a big bit.

 

[killer b]

some speculation that May will withdraw the bill. If she loses by the sort of margins being talk about - she could well be finished. Resign or cabinet push her out. I mean - what is the point of theresa may?

again, who's speculating? anyone real or some bullshitter on twitter?

 

[Kaka Tim]

again, who's speculating? anyone real or some bullshitter on twitter?

paul mason i think. its what would normally happen when a government is facing certain defeat. but "normally" seems to have left the building some time ago.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, another way of putting it is: the very reasons the govt wanted to keep it for their eyes only are the very reasons mps should be annoyed at the attempt to keep it secret.

And we all knew that! It was blindingly obvious what the legal advice said. Tbh I think there are probably quite a few outside the govt on both sides who are revelling in the power they have just exercised to force the govt to publish. I get the impression that many backbenchers are rather enjoying the fact that they are getting all this attention. I tuned in briefly to the debate this afternoon, and they're all standing up to have their go at looking statesmanlike with their little speeches.

 

[killer b]

'fraid Mason counts as some bullshitter on twitter.

 

[Teaboy]

And we all knew that! It was blindingly obvious what the legal advice said. Tbh I think there are probably quite a few outside the govt on both sides who are revelling in the power they have just exercised to force the govt to publish. I get the impression that many backbenchers are rather enjoying the fact that they are getting all this attention. I tuned in briefly to the debate this afternoon, and they're all standing up to have their go at looking statesmanlike with their little speeches.

Given the seeming magnitude of whats going on its not surprising that they all want to make a speech. Wouldn't you be a bit bothered if your MP decided they had nothing to say on the subject? I mean what would be the point of sending them to Parliament to be a representative and then decide they're not going to contribute to this debate?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Johnson now claiming (probably not completely incorrectly) that the deal represents an attempt by the EU to extend their influence in NI.

EU making 'predatory claim' on NI - Johnson

 

[Wilf]

And we all knew that! It was blindingly obvious what the legal advice said. Tbh I think there are probably quite a few outside the govt on both sides who are revelling in the power they have just exercised to force the govt to publish. I get the impression that many backbenchers are rather enjoying the fact that they are getting all this attention. I tuned in briefly to the debate this afternoon, and they're all standing up to have their go at looking statesmanlike with their little speeches.

Oh, yes, certainly. There's no 'good side' in these parliamentary manoeuvres, just a series of fuckers who have unexpectedly found themselves in some kind of 12th night-misrule-mischief night. Nothing has been challenged, nothing broken, just a few random turds have temporarily floated to the top.

 

[SpackleFrog]

some speculation that May will withdraw the bill. If she loses by the sort of margins being talk about - she could well be finished. Resign or cabinet push her out. I mean - what is the point of theresa may?

Human shit magnet/saviour of British capitalism?

E2A: Martyr of British capitalism even.

 

[Wilf]

Human shit magnet/saviour of British capitalism?

E2A: Martyr of British capitalism even.

For £0.01
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Uses-John-Major-Patrick-Wright/dp/0233988629

 

[The Fornicator]

Given the seeming magnitude of whats going on its not surprising that they all want to make a speech. Wouldn't you be a bit bothered if your MP decided they had nothing to say on the subject? I mean what would be the point of sending them to Parliament to be a representative and then decide they're not going to contribute to this debate?

It's about Hansard. MPs want to appear in the official record because everyone understands this is historic. They were doing it at midnight with 5 people in the chamber, and a completely empty Labour/Opposition side.

 

[The Fornicator]

Apart from Fornicator who thinks you need to make £500K a year rather than just read Twitter.

I know it's complicated, but what you read on Twitter is written by people, and people earn money from writing and from having insight. Twitter is called a *platform*.

You sound a little bitter at not having the authority of qualified professionals.

 

[paolo]

Johnson now claiming (probably not completely incorrectly) that the deal represents an attempt by the EU to extend their influence in NI.

EU making 'predatory claim' on NI - Johnson

I’m not sure exactly what he means.

I could see them backing ROI if it’s up for reunification. Is that it?

 

[SpackleFrog]

I know it's complicated, but what you read on Twitter is written by people, and people earn money from writing and from having insight. Twitter is called a *platform*.

You sound a little bitter at not having the authority of qualified professionals.

Do you have the authority of a qualified professional? Or did you pay someone to explain the legal advice to you?