Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Interesting take on this from NF

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Not sure where he coming from with that.

The Benn Act is UK act, the EU has no obligation whatsoever to entertain it.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Better for who, struggle to see them being "onside" if it were genuinely in our interests

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Beth Rigby
‏Verified account @BethRigby
1h1 hour ago

NEW: Hearing from sources second referendum amendment on Saturday is now unlikely. Focus on defeating Johnson deal > in reality need Labour backing to get it passed and Corbyn ain’t there

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

It’s in their interests. No matter what the Remainers and our Remain Parliament would like, Brexit will happen, eventually. So why prolong the agony.

Lance the boil and move forward.

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

Would be pant wettingly hilarious, if they voted against the deal and the EU kept firm on no extension. They would have to vote for it or no deal.

No doubt this is what Boris will be reinforcing with EU27. Hold firm, the deal will have to be passed and we can all move on.

Negotiations on the new trade deal begin on Nov 1st.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Isn't there a rule against voting for the same deal more than once ? and if so
saturday is the last chance saloon.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

May's deal was presented 3 times, but Boris could just as easily not present it again and no deal is the result in no extension granted.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Yes but didn't berclod drag up some guff from the stone age that prohibited it being presented more than once?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Wasn@t it to stop it being presented for the 4th time?

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Indeed it was but i thought the ruling was that no bill if defeated can be presented in the same form in future sittings of the house.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

We are in a new session. That rule wouldn't apply.

Edit: as papa said

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Anyone else think Nige is sulking somewhat today? He's now moaning that the EU is not permitting an extension*.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/sta...34973662175234

* I don't think this is quite what the EU said.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

So, in one session May peresented an agreement to be passed 3 times.

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

Quoting from the guide to parliamentary procedure, Erskine May, Bercow said by convention, the question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” and that it was a “strong and longstanding convention” dating back to 1604.
He said the convention had been confirmed again many times, including in 1864, 1870, 1882, 1891 and 1912. “Indeed, Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920,” he said.

“One of the reasons the rule has lasted so long is that it is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time and the proper respect for the decisions it takes.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...e-on-same-deal

Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion
 

That relied on a liberal interpretation of the rules. Johnson could present the same deal (he won't) without issue.