Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

I think more than the AG the legal opinion of Nigel Dodds and the ERG appointed lawyers to consider it will carry more weight.

If 116 more MPs vote for this than the last deal it’ll show them up as the spineless clueless shower many suspected them to be. Two more months of uncertainty for business, Parliamentary and civil service time wasted to achieve nothing.

Originally Posted by Damien

I hope it does. Sick of it. No deal should be avoided. However if the ERG do throw their toys out of the pram then they risk a less 'clean' Brexit.

The ERG should be renamed to ‘Moggmentum" - they are exactly the same as Momentum, only in the Right Wing.

Originally Posted by jfman

Some of us are discussing Brexit and the Parliamentary process. I understand it’ll involve difficult concepts for you so perhaps best to just go to bed and hope it’s a bad dream.

Have you fixed your countdown?

Ahem! Less of the sniping and a bit more reasoned debate please.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 ----------

Originally Posted by djfunkdup

^^^^^^^^ Blah Blah Blah ..


Onwards and Upwards

Please debate the topic and stop sniping at other members

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not saying that the news is not true. The Mirror is more credible than The Daily Vlad however articles based on repeating what "diplomatic sources told the Telegraph" still leave a lot to be desired.

The cited monthly amount seems to be just click-bait as we pay over £1 billion per month anyway as EU members so if we do not leave, we still would be paying our dues.

Fair enough & fair comment.

[Mr K]

It's the only 'brexit', you're going to get folks and probably the best we can get. Considerably worse than our current deal, and not brexit at all. But might be enough to give the nutters a climb down. What's laughable is absolutely nothing has changed. Aren't politicians a laugh !

[nomadking]

The first is a "joint legally binding instrument" on the withdrawal agreement which the UK could use to start a "formal dispute" against the EU if it tried to keep the UK tied into the backstop indefinitely.
The other is a joint statement about the UK and EU's future relationship which commits to replacing the backstop with an alternative by December 2020.

So how is this any different to before? If it is so cut and dried that the backstop is only temporary, why the need for a possible "formal dispute"? If the result of the "formal dispute" goes against the UK, which it probably will, then the backstop becomes permanent.

[jfman]

You’ve got to hand it to Theresa May putting her deal up three times to get voted on.

Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General: "the legal risk remains unchanged".

However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._co..___2_.pdf

[Dave42]

well interesting 2 days ahead when deal voted down tonight and no deal voted down tomorrow

[1andrew1]

Doesn't look good for TM or indeed Brexit.

I see the digs and counter digs have happened and it's the same people. Time outs issued yet again:

Polite Reminder:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Anyone who continues to act in a childish manner will get a "timeout".
You will be suspended from any posting for 1 day (first time), then 3 days, then a week.
Should you not learn after 3 timeouts, a fourth time will see you banned from Cable Forum.

Note: This applies across the forum, not just this topic.

[mrmistoffelees]

DUP statement in approx five minutes, but, so far from their previous comments it's not looking good.

Gavin Esler summed up the new "deal".

You know that car I sold you that won’t start?

Yes.

I’ve polished it.

And a International Law lawyer posted this

Let this be put in plain terms.

You cannot have a "unilateral" interpretation of a bilateral text.

It makes no sense. It is meaningless. It is illogical. It is oxymoronic. It is moronic.

And it certainly is *not* "legally binding".

Also, the Pound dropped sharply on hearing Cox’s legal device that the legal risk hadn’t changed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47539682

[mrmistoffelees]

ERG voting against, DUP not decided yet.

I think May will lose by 80-100 votes tonight

Meaningful vote 3 already been discussed apparently

ERG 'do not recommend' voting for the deal.

Suggestion is they don't quite recommend voting against. Might abstain.