Bye bye Theresa

[NotoriousREV]

I think it was Henry VIIIs fault. He set the precedent by doing the first Brexit.

"Screw you guys, I'm starting my own church, with hookers and blackjack" - Henry VIII, probably

[DeskJockey]

I think it was Henry VIIIs fault. He set the precedent by doing the first Brexit.

"Screw you guys, I'm starting my own church, with hookers and blackjack" - Henry VIII, probably

That is the crux of it! The seed of all that's gone wrong.

[Jobbo]

I would say it's William of Normandy's fault, attempting to integrate us into Europe in the first place. What was he thinking?

[240PP]

I must admit I haven’t really been following all the Brexit stuff, so if someone could summarise each BBC announcement with a ‘Good news’ or ‘Bad news’ that would be FG.

[DeskJockey]

If the Beeb is to be believed, it is actually Norway's fault. If they hadn't had those landslides 6000 years ago that caused the biggest tsunami in history, then Britain would still be linked to Europe by land.

[Swervin_Mervin]

11:59 more like - there's no time to prepare for a deal, no deal or the withdrawal agreement (i.e. put in place the legislation) now so I can still see a delay to the Brexit date happening.

labour will vote against every possible option no mAtter what, so there’s no way we’ll have anything but a delay.

Quite a few Labour MPs have openly stated they'll disobey the stated party line if it's to vote against a deal, and that was before May secured whatever these changes are supposed to be. I think it'll get voted through.

[GG.]

By signing the Maastricht Treaty.

This

[Jobbo]

If the Beeb is to be believed, it is actually Norway's fault. If they hadn't had those landslides 6000 years ago that caused the biggest tsunami in history, then Britain would still be linked to Europe by land.

Good point. And there was I thinking the next earliest fault was Julius Caesar with the Roman invasion. What have the Romans ever done for us? Caused Brexit, that negates the good work of sanitation, roads....

[dinny_g]

Don't forget about the Viniculture...

[Jobbo]

What have the Romans ever done for us? Caused Brexit, that negates the good work of sanitation, roads, viniculture...

[dinny_g]

and the aqueduct ???

[GG.]

Anyway - bets on which way meaningful vote mkII is going to go?

Some predictions of her halving the loss but still being defeated by 50-75 votes.

Will be interesting to see codpiece's statement to the House at 11:30.

[Simon]

She'll lose, following Cox's new advice. I'm always intrigued by the words 'meaningful vote'. Surely all votes in Parliament are 'meaningful' aren't they? That is, by saying it's 'meaningful' suggests that it could be noted but ultimately ignored.

[GG.]

It's kind of the opposite. Some votes are actually binding and others just indicative motions (I'm not an expert on house procedure) so if anything this should probably be called a "binding vote" with non binding motions being "meaningful (but non-binding) votes".

Unless of course its a vote proposed by Corbyn on Brexit in which case it is almost certainly fudged into meaninglessness.

[speedingfine]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/t ... al-advice/

That's me convinced

[Zonda_]

I give her till Friday!

[GG.]

Its actually a very interesting analysis - the additional clarifications around the duties on the parties to negotiate, etc. do in my view significantly reduce the risk of the EU just dragging its feet or making unreasonable demands with the intent to keep the UK in backstop indefinitely. It does in my opinion make Grieve look a fool (or at least simply acting no more than in his capacity as a politician, not a lawyer) when you juxtapose his "no difference" soundbites to reading a proper legal analysis.

The key issue really is whether you agree that the outside risk of non-agreement by the parties simply due to genuine, reasonable disagreement is as low a likelihood as Cox is attributing to it (which he correctly notes is a political judgment). Given the multitude of competing interests within the EU and the difficulties in getting our own side to agree on what form of settlement it wants post Brexit, then if you reformulated the question as "could we end up stuck in the backstop for a decade" rather than "indefinitely", I would think the risk spikes dramatically.

Its a very difficult call really. When I say that I also mean for those of all Brexit stripes given no deal not a viable option from a preparedness perspective and given the composition of parliament and also the lack of likelihood we would get agreement to a long enough extension to hold a second referendum and again, their being no parliamentary majority for that.

At the end of the day, politically I would not underestimate the dissatisfaction there would be within the EU and the commission if the backstop were to persist for a significant period and that probably should be enough assurance that it won't. At this stage you have to look at the political context here as well as the law does not operate in a vaccum, especially when the law in question deals with the eventuality of political disagreement.

I think at this point the only deal is genuinely the one on the table and should be taken. Not that the HoC will actually vote for it, of course.

[Rich B]

BOOM! There’s the essay!!

[GG.]

And there's the Rich riposte

[Swervin_Mervin]

At the end of the day, politically I would not underestimate the dissatisfaction there would be within the EU and the commission if the backstop were to persist for a significant period and that probably should be enough assurance that it won't.

Why so? I thought the general consensus was that being locked in the backstop would be a massive win for the EU